Reed Objections To Plaintiffs Evidence Doc 507

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 517 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 127 Page ID #:13493
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
JAMES F. McCABE (CA SBN 104686) JMcCabe@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 MICHAEL B. MILLER (Pro Hac Vice) MBMiller@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10104-0050 Telephone: 212.468.8009 Facsimile: 212.468.7900 Attorneys for Reed Elsevier Inc., LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group Inc., LexisNexis, Inc., LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc., LexisNexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint, and LexisNexis Group Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ORLY TAITZ, et al., Defendants. Case No. CV11-00485 AG (AJWx) LEXISNEXIS DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO LEXISNEXIS DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Honorable Judge Andrew J. Guilford Date: May 21, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept: 10 D
LEXISNEXIS DEFS. OBJECTIONS TO PLS. EVIDENCE CASE NO. CV11-00485 AG (AJWx) sf-3141139
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendants Reed Elsevier Inc., LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group Inc., LexisNexis, Inc., LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc., Lexis Nexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint, and LexisNexis Group, Inc. (collectively, the LexisNexis Defendants) hereby submit the following objections to the Declaration of Philip J. Berg (Berg Declaration), Declaration of Lisa Liberi (Liberi Declaration), Declaration of Brent Liberi (B. Liberi Declaration), Declaration of Lisa Ostella (Ostella Declaration), and Declaration of Dr. Frank Ostella (F. Ostella Declaration) offered in support of Plaintiffs Opposition to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE Objections to Berg Declaration Page 1, Line 25- Page 2, Line 4. 1. I am an Attorney in good standing, licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I am licensed to practice in the U.S. District Courts, Middle and Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Third Circuit Court of Appeals; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; and the U.S. Supreme Court. And, I am the Attorney of Record for all the Plaintiffs in this case. Page 2, Lines 5-11 2. I am making this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs Opposition to Reed Elsevier, Inc.; ChoicePoint, Inc.; LexisNexis; Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Analytics Group, LLC; and LexisNexis Group, collectively [Reed Defendants] Motion for
Grounds for Objection
GRANTED/ DENIED
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Summary Judgment [MSJ]. Page 2, Lines 13-22 3. On November 30, 2011, I served on behalf of Plaintiffs the Reed Defendants with their Initial Disclosures that included approximately Five Thousand [5,000] pages. On December 12, 2012, I sent a settlement demand to James McCabe, Esquire Attorney for the Reed Defendants. In said demand, I stated I had not received the Reed Defendants Initial Disclosures and if the Reed Defendants did not intend to settle then they needed to serve their Initial Disclosures.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related disputes are irrelevant to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without making the required showing under Rule 56(d) that, for specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of correspondence he sent are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
Page 2, Line 23 Page 3, Line 2
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 4. Mr. McCabe never disputes are irrelevant to responded to me. On January 3, LexisNexis Defendants 2012, I sent a demand letter to all Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants stating if I did not and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without receive their Initial Disclosures by January 10, 2012, then I making the required showing would be seeking Leave to file under Rule 56(d) that, for Motions to Compel. In this letter, specified reasons, they I reminded the Reed Defendants cannot present facts essential that Trial was fast approaching in to justify [their] opposition. June 2012. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of correspondence he sent are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration
Grounds for Objection 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 3, Lines 4-11
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 5. On January 10, 2012, disputes are irrelevant to Michael B. Miller, Esquire, LexisNexis Defendants Attorney for the Reed Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants sent me a letter and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without stating they would not supply Initial Disclosures until January making the required showing 24, 2012, that he was treating his under Rule 56(d) that, for letter as a Meet and Confer specified reasons, they pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. I cannot present facts essential responded to Mr. Miller granting to justify [their] opposition. him until January 24, 2012 and Plaintiffs have not attempted to informing him that I would be invoke Rule 56(d) in their propounding Plaintiffs Discovery opposition papers. Also, the upon each of the Reed declarants statements Defendants. concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Page 3, Lines 12-15 6. I served each of the Reed Defendants with Plaintiffs Discovery on January 13, 2012, by way of Interrogatories; Request for Admissions; and Request for Production of Documents. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related disputes are irrelevant to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without making the required showing under Rule 56(d) that, for specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. This testimony should also be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because the discovery referred to was withdrawn by Plaintiffs and is not at issue in this case. Plaintiffs discovery actually was served on February 2, 2012.
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Page 3, Lines 16-26
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 7. On January 26, 2012, not disputes are irrelevant to receiving the Reed Defendants LexisNexis Defendants Initial Disclosures, I sent another Motion for Summary Judgment letter to Mr. McCabe and Mr. and cannot create a genuine Miller again demanding the Reed dispute of material fact without Defendants Initial Disclosures. making the required showing Mr. Miller responded stating he under Rule 56(d) that, for had sent the Reed Defendants specified reasons, they Initial Disclosures, but once he cannot present facts essential returns to his office he would to justify [their] opposition. Email them to me, which he did. Plaintiffs have not attempted to Of course, the Reed Defendants invoke Rule 56(d) in their failed to provide anything but opposition papers. Also, the objections claiming I never met declarants statements and conferred with counsel for concerning the contents of the Reed Defendants pursuant to parties correspondence are Rule 26, which was contrary to objectionable to the extent that Mr. Millers letter of January 10, those statements are 2012. inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 8. On January 30, 2012, I disputes are irrelevant to called and spoke to Mr. Miller LexisNexis Defendants regarding the incomplete Initial Motion for Summary Judgment Disclosures received from the and cannot create a genuine Reed Defendants. Mr. Miller dispute of material fact without treated the call as a Meet and making the required showing Confer as to the Reed under Rule 56(d) that, for Defendants intentions of filing a specified reasons, they Motion for Summary Judgment. cannot present facts essential I followed up his call with an to justify [their] opposition. Email confirming the Plaintiffs have not attempted to conversation. I also sent an invoke Rule 56(d) in their Email regarding a Meet and opposition papers. Also, the Confer regarding the declarants statements incomplete and improper Initial concerning the contents of Disclosures and my intent on parties correspondence are seeking Leave to file a Motion to objectionable to the extent that Compel. Mr. Miller again those statements are responded stating I had not inconsistent with the referenced complied with the Meet and documents and violate the best Confer Requirements and he was evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. unsure as to how the information 1002. supplied by me pertained to his Page 4, Lines 1-14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration intentions of filing a Motion for Summary Judgment. Page 4, Lines 15-23 9. The Meet and Confer was rescheduled for Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. During this Meet and Confer, Mr. Miller wanted the Reed Defendants Discovery re-served, which extended the date due for another month; and Mr. Miller stated he would be filing for a Protective Order, which I agreed to stipulate to. Mr. Miller also stated he would be setting depositions, but the dates could be discussed and he did not intend the specific dates to go forward; and that he would be sending Plaintiffs the Reed Defendants Supplemental Disclosures.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related disputes are irrelevant to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without making the required showing under Rule 56(d) that, for specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related disputes are irrelevant to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without making the required showing under Rule 56(d) that, for specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid.
5
Page 4, Lines 25-27 10. On February 2, 2012, I re-served the Reed Defendants Discovery on Mr. Miller via Email as requested by Mr. Miller. The Reed Defendants Answers were due March 5, 2012. The Reed Defendants again failed to comply.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Page 5, Lines 1-7 11.On February 3, 2012, Plaintiffs received the Reed Defendants Discovery propounded on them and set Depositions of Lisa Ostella; Lisa Liberi; and me in California on February 28, 2012; March 1, 2012, and March 2, 2012, without discussing any dates with me and not even giving thirty [30] days notice and prior to the date Discovery was due. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related disputes are irrelevant to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without making the required showing under Rule 56(d) that, for specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 5, Lines 8-15
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 12. On February 22, 2012, I disputes are irrelevant to sent another Email to Mr. Miller LexisNexis Defendants informing him that I had not Motion for Summary Judgment received the requested Protective and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without Order; had not received the Supplemental Initial Disclosures making the required showing as promised; nor had I received under Rule 56(d) that, for any communications regarding specified reasons, they the depositions dates set by Mr. cannot present facts essential Miller. I asked that Mr. Miller to justify [their] opposition. please provide me with dates of Plaintiffs have not attempted to availability so I could coordinate invoke Rule 56(d) in their the dates for Depositions. I never opposition papers. Also, the received any dates from Mr. declarants statements Miller. concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Page 5, Lines 16-19 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 13. Mr. Miller responded disputes are irrelevant to stating the Deposition dates were LexisNexis Defendants
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration deemed opened and adjourned; and Plaintiffs would receive Supplemental Initial Disclosures the following week.
Grounds for Objection Motion for Summary Judgment and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without making the required showing under Rule 56(d) that, for specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Page 5, Lines 20-22 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 14. On February 27, 2012, disputes are irrelevant to Mr. Miller sent me another Email LexisNexis Defendants stating he was fine with Motion for Summary Judgment conducting Depositions after and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without Discovery responses had been served. making the required showing under Rule 56(d) that, for specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 5, Lines 23-26
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 15. On March 1, 2012, Mr. disputes are irrelevant to Miller Emailed me asking for yet LexisNexis Defendants another extension of time until Motion for Summary Judgment March 12, 2012, to respond to and cannot create a genuine the Plaintiffs Discovery dispute of material fact without propounded on each of the Reed making the required showing Defendants. Mr. Miller also under Rule 56(d) that, for called me. specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Page 6, Lines 1-5 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 16. I received an Email from disputes are irrelevant to Mr. Miller stating I had agreed to LexisNexis Defendants extend the Reed Defendants until Motion for Summary Judgment March 12, 2012 to respond to and cannot create a genuine Plaintiffs Discovery, which was dispute of material fact without not true. I immediately making the required showing responded stating I must receive under Rule 56(d) that, for the Reed Defendants Responses specified reasons, they to Discovery by 5:00 p.m. EST cannot present facts essential on Thursday, March 8, 2012. to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 6, Lines 7-12
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 17. On March 2, 2012, I disputes are irrelevant to finally received what the Reed LexisNexis Defendants Defendants called their Initial Motion for Summary Judgment Disclosures. The Initial and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without Disclosures again were wholly deficient and lacked the required making the required showing information as outlined in Rule under Rule 56(d) that, for 26. Mr. Miller stated he would specified reasons, they not supply certain information cannot present facts essential until after the Protective Order to justify [their] opposition. was filed, a true and correct copy Plaintiffs have not attempted to is attached hereto as EXHIBIT invoke Rule 56(d) in their 1. opposition papers. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Page 6, Lines 14-18 18. On March 6, 2012, Mr. Miller sought Leave of Court to file a Motion for Summary Judgment. On this same date, Mr. Miller sent an Email to me stating he would call me on Friday of the week of the 12th of March to discuss Deposition dates. I never received a call from Mr. Miller regarding Depositions dates.
Grounds for Objection Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related disputes are irrelevant to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without making the required showing under Rule 56(d) that, for specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Page 6, Line 19 Page 7, Line 2 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 19. I finally received disputes are irrelevant to responses to Plaintiffs Discovery LexisNexis Defendants requests from the Reed Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants. The Reed and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without Defendants Answers were wholly deficient. The only making the required showing responses that contained any type under Rule 56(d) that, for of a response, besides boilerplate specified reasons, they
11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration objections, was from Defendant Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint [Accurint]. Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; ChoicePoint, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; and LexisNexis asserted boilerplate objections to every single Interrogatory, Request for Production and Request for Admissions.
Grounds for Objection cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Page 7, Lines 4-18 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 20. On March 25, 2012, I disputes are irrelevant to sent a letter dated March 26, LexisNexis Defendants 2012 to Mr. Miller and Mr. Motion for Summary Judgment McCabe outlining the and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without deficiencies in what they called Responses to Plaintiffs making the required showing Discovery as to each of the Reed under Rule 56(d) that, for Defendants. I informed Mr. specified reasons, they Miller and Mr. McCabe that if cannot present facts essential they wished to conduct the to justify [their] opposition. Meet and Confer Plaintiffs have not attempted to telephonically to please provide invoke Rule 56(d) in their dates within the next forty-eight opposition papers. Also, the [48] hours that they are available. declarants statements I stated otherwise, if I did not concerning the contents of receive Supplemental Responses parties correspondence are to the Reed Defendants objectionable to the extent that Responses within seven [7] days, those statements are I would be seeking Leave of inconsistent with the referenced
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Court to file A Motion to Compel. I also informed counsel for the Reed Defendants that all Requests for Admissions served upon the Reed Defendants had been deemed Admitted. See EXHIBIT 2. Instead of properly responding to discovery, the Reed Defendants filed the within Motion for Summary Judgment.
Grounds for Objection documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 21. The Accurint responses I disputes are irrelevant to received did respond to a couple LexisNexis Defendants of the Interrogatories, but failed Motion for Summary Judgment to produce any of the and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without documentation asked for. Accurint stated they would not making the required showing supply the information until a under Rule 56(d) that, for Protective Order was in place, specified reasons, they but the Reed Defendants have cannot present facts essential never filed their request for a to justify [their] opposition. Protective Order. See EXHIBIT Plaintiffs have not attempted to 3, which is Accurints invoke Rule 56(d) in their Responses to Plaintiffs opposition papers. Also, the Interrogatories; See EXHIBIT declarants statements 4, which is Accurints concerning the contents of Responses to Plaintiffs Request parties correspondence are for Production of Documents; objectionable to the extent that and See EXHIBIT 5, which is those statements are Accurints Responses to inconsistent with the referenced Plaintiffs Request for documents and violate the best Admissions. evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements
13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 8, Lines 4-11
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 22. I have attached as disputes are irrelevant to EXHIBIT 6 Defendant LexisNexis Defendants ChoicePoint, Inc.s Responses to Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs Interrogatories; as and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without EXHIBIT 7 ChoicePoint, Inc.s Responses to Plaintiffs making the required showing Request for Production; and as under Rule 56(d) that, for EXHIBIT 8 ChoicePoint, Inc. specified reasons, they Responses to Plaintiffs Request cannot present facts essential for Admissions. As for each of to justify [their] opposition. the other Reed Defendants, all of Plaintiffs have not attempted to their Responses are pretty much invoke Rule 56(d) in their identical to ChoicePoint, Inc.s opposition papers. Also, the boilerplate objections that they declarants statements call their Responses. concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Page 8, Lines 12-25 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration 23. Although the Reed Defendants admit that the Sankey Firm, Inc. through Neil Sankey and Todd Sankey conducted searches on the Plaintiffs through Accurint and reports were sold on the Plaintiffs from Accurint to IRBsearch, LLC, a reseller for the Accurint product, each of the Reed Defendants have refused to turn over any searches conducted or reports they have sold regarding any of the Plaintiffs. Defendant Accurint admits that searches were conducted and reports were sold on Plaintiff Liberi and her husband Brent on March 16, 2009; April 6, 2009; April 15, 2009; April 19, 2009; and May 7, 2009; and on Plaintiff Ostella and her husband Frank on April 13, 2009 and April 19, 2009.
Grounds for Objection disputes are irrelevant to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without making the required showing under Rule 56(d) that, for specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 24. I have attempted to work disputes are irrelevant to with the Reed Defendants LexisNexis Defendants through their counsel; Motion for Summary Judgment unfortunately, it has turned into and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without nothing more than delay tactics and games. The Reed Defendants making the required showing refusal to disclose the discovery under Rule 56(d) that, for information sought by Plaintiffs; specified reasons, they refusal to provide the cannot present facts essential information they maintain on the to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs; and refusal to provide Plaintiffs have not attempted to
15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration the searches and reports sold on the Plaintiffs, is very prejudicial to the Plaintiffs as it prohibits the Plaintiffs from being able to respond to the Reed Defendants MSJ, and on this basis alone, the Reed Defendants MSJ should be Denied.
Grounds for Objection invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related disputes are irrelevant to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without making the required showing under Rule 56(d) that, for specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers.
Page 9, Lines 11-15 25. I had several conversations with Marc Colen, Attorney for Neil Sankey, Todd Sankey, Sankey Investigations, Inc. and The Sankey Firm, Inc. collectively [Sankey Defendants] in regards to their Initial Disclosures and Plaintiffs requested Discovery.
Page 9, Lines 16-21
The declarants statements concerning the contents of the 26. On January 20, 2012 I document, attached as Exhibit received a stack of documents 9, are objectionable to the from Mr. Colen as the Sankey extent that those statements are Defendants Initial Disclosures. inconsistent with the referenced Included in these documents document and violate the best were searches conducted directly evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. through Accurint on Plaintiff 1002. Lisa Liberi on March 16, 2009. See EXHIBIT 91. Declarant lacks any sort of foundation or personal knowledge in support of his
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection unsupported assertion that the exhibit demonstrates any sort of direct search through Accurint rather than the results of a search through the Accurint re-seller IRB. There also is no foundation provided to establish that the document attached as Exhibit 9 is genuine. Fed. R. Evid. 901.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 9, Line 22 Page 10, Line 18 27. This search on Plaintiff Lisa Liberi was run using Mrs. Liberis name and address. The search on Mrs. Liberi returned Mrs. Liberis name, Social Security number, both old and new, date of birth and addresses. Each name listed as belonging to Mrs. Liberi included Mrs. Liberis Social Security number and date of birth, although many of the names never belonged to or were used by Mrs. Liberi. See the Declaration of Lisa Liberi filed concurrently herewith. I have redacted Mrs. Liberis Social Security numbers and month and day of birth for this filing. As indicated by the Accurint search attached as EXHIBIT 9 this search was conducted directly in the Accurint database located at https://secure.accurint.com/app/b ps/main by Neil Sankey and The Sankey Firm, Inc. Contrary to the Reed Defendants and Neil Sankeys statements that neither Neil Sankey nor The Sankey Firm, Inc. had accounts with Accurint, and none of the searches were conducted directly from any of the Reed Defendants, the searches conducted on Mrs. Liberi were run directly from Accurints database by Neil Sankey and The
The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 9, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. As evidenced by the unredacted version of the document, the purported search does not disclose Lisa Liberis full social security number. (Miller Decl. 29, Ex. I.)
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Also, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for testifying that the purported search was conducted directly in the Accurint database. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The statement in this regard constitutes argument, and is thus inadmissible.
17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Sankey Firm, Inc. as depicted on EXHIBIT 9 on the bottom left of each page.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 10, Line 19 Page 11, Line The declarants statements 10 concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 28. Plaintiff Lisa Liberis 10, are objectionable to the comprehensive report obtained extent that those statements are by The Sankey Firm, Inc. on inconsistent with the referenced March 16, 2009 was included document and violate the best with the Sankey Defendants evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. Initial Disclosures. See a true and 1002. correct copy of Liberis comprehensive report attached as As evidenced by the EXHIBIT 10. Mrs. Liberis version of the report contains her, name; every unredacted the purported search document, name ever used, including does not disclose Lisa Liberis maiden; addresses; both her old full social security number. and new Social Security (Miller Decl. 29, Ex. J.) numbers; date of birth; income, education, employment, home values, unlisted and unpublished telephone numbers; spouses name, date of birth, addresses, Social Security number; friends including their names, Social Security numbers, relatives Argumentative. Burch v. including their friends, relatives, Regents of the Univ. of Cal., dates of birth, addresses, home 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 value, income, education,; Mrs. (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements Liberis relatives including in declarations based on names, addresses, Social speculation or improper legal Security numbers, dates of birth, conclusions, or argumentative friends and relatives, including statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered their Social Security numbers, dates of birth, home values, on a motion for summary education, income, relative and judgment.). friends information, every name ever used, including maiden names; income, home value; education; neighbors names, addresses and private data, There is no foundation judgments, liens, etc. provided to establish that the document attached as Exhibit 10 is genuine. Fed. R. Evid. 901. Page 11, Lines 11-21 The declarants statements concerning the contents of the 29. In addition, Mrs. Liberis document, attached as Exhibit
18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration report contains her unlisted and unpublished cell phone number; her cell phone carrier; her employment history with her Social Security number, her position, time employed, address of employer; judgments going back to 1993 containing Mrs. Liberis name, Social Security number, address, creditor, amount of the Judgment, and date filed; bankruptcy information; criminal data, etc. The report also contains names of Mrs. Liberi with her Social Security number and date of birth that have never been Mrs. Liberis names or used by Mrs. Liberi, etc.
Grounds for Objection 10, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. As evidenced by the unredacted version of the document, the purported search does not disclose Lisa Liberis full social security number. (Miller Decl. 29, Ex. J.)
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 11, Line 30 Page 12, Line The declarants statements 4 concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 30. All Social Security 10, are objectionable to the numbers furnished in Mrs. extent that those statements are Liberis Comprehensive Report inconsistent with the referenced show the time period the number document and violate the best was issued and what state the evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. Social Security number was 1002. issued out of. As can be seen, this comprehensive report goes As evidenced by the to Mrs. Liberis personal unredacted version of the information, general reputation, document, the purported search character, personal does not disclose Lisa Liberis characteristics, mode of living, full social security number. income, credit standing, credit (Miller Decl. 29, Ex. J.) capacity and credit-worthiness
19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
GRANTED/ DENIED
(Judgments and bankruptcy), etc., as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act [FCRA], 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(1). Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Page 12, Line 5 Page 14, Line 4 31. Also included in the Sankey Defendants Initial Disclosures was a Comprehensive Report run by The Sankey Firm, Inc. on April 6, 2009 on Brent Liberi, spouse of Plaintiff Lisa Liberi. See EXHIBIT 11, the Comprehensive report run on Brent Liberi. As shown on this Comprehensive Report, this report includes: i. Mr. Liberis full name; date of birth; Social Security number and every address he has ever resided; criminal record, although it shows none; unlisted and unpublished telephone numbers; income; home value; age; average years of education; on owned real estate, who the mortgage was financed with; bankruptcy; and a tax lien from 1994, showing unpaid although it was paid in full; neighbors, friends, relatives, including their names, addresses, Social Security The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 11, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. As evidenced by the unredacted version of the document, the purported search does not disclose Lisa Liberis full social security number. (Miller Decl. 29, Ex. K)
Irrelevant. Brent Liberi is not a party to this case, and thus any reports run with respect to him are irrelevant to this matter, and inadmissibile for that reason.
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration numbers, dates of birth, home values, income, etc. This report also contains incorrect information as to Mr. Liberi affixed by Accurint to Mr. Liberi by Mr. Liberis Social Security number, date of birth, etc.; ii. Mr. Liberis sister, Brandy Heller3, Mrs. Hellers Social Security number, date of birth, age, addresses, maiden name, spouses name, addresses, date of birth, years of education, Social Security numbers, relatives, home values, income, etc. iii. Mr. Liberis parents names, including his stepfather, their addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, relatives, any other name ever used, home values, income, years of education, etc. iv. Mr. Liberis wifes names, Social Security number (both old and new), addresses, relatives, friends, home value, income, etc. v. Mr. Liberis in-laws (Plaintiff Liberis parents), including their names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, home values, income, relatives, etc. vi. Mr. Liberis sister-in-law, Social Security number, date of birth, addresses, names ever used, date of death, friends and associates, age, home value, income, years of
GRANTED/ DENIED
There is no foundation provided to establish that the document attached as Exhibit 11 is genuine. Fed. R. Evid. 901. Furthermore, Brent Liberi is not a party to this action and, therefore, the document is not relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration education, relatives, etc. All Social Security numbers furnished in this Comprehensive Report show the time period the number was issued and what state the Social Security number was issued out of. As can be seen, this comprehensive report goes to Mr. Liberis personal information, general reputation, character, personal characteristics, mode of living, income, credit standing, credit capacity and credit-worthiness (bankruptcy and Tax Lien), etc. as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act [FCRA], 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(1). Page 14, Lines 5-8 32. The Sankey Defendants did not turn over all the reports they purchased on the Plaintiffs. I have demanded the additional reports, and missing pages, but the Sankey Defendants have refused to furnish them.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related disputes are irrelevant to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without making the required showing under Rule 56(d) that, for specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related 33. I served Plaintiffs First disputes are irrelevant to Set of Discovery on the Sankey LexisNexis Defendants Defendants January 19, 2012 by Motion for Summary Judgment way of Email and through the and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without United States Postal Service, Priority Mail, signature required. making the required showing Mr. Colen acknowledged the under Rule 56(d) that, for discovery sent by Email on his specified reasons, they clients and signed for the hard cannot present facts essential copies of Plaintiffs Discovery on to justify [their] opposition. January 21, 2012. The Sankey Plaintiffs have not attempted to Defendants Responses were due invoke Rule 56(d) in their on or before February 20, 2012. opposition papers. Also, the This includes Neil Sankey and declarants statements Sankey Investigations, Inc. who concerning the contents of on March 9, 2012 filed a Chapter parties correspondence are 7 Bankruptcy. objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Page 14, Lines 9-18
Page 14, Lines 19-20 34. Plaintiffs Discovery served upon the Sankey Defendants included Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents and Request for Admissions.
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related disputes are irrelevant to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without making the required showing under Rule 56(d) that, for specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition.
23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 14, Lines 22-25 35. To date, The Sankey Defendants have failed to respond to any of the Plaintiffs Discovery requests, including each of the Request for Admissions that were propounded.
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs discovery-related disputes are irrelevant to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without making the required showing under Rule 56(d) that, for specified reasons, they cannot present facts essential to justify [their] opposition. Plaintiffs have not attempted to invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Page 15, Lines 2-11 36. In support of the Reed Defendants MSJ, they filed the Declaration of Neil Sankey, See Docket Number [DN] 494. In The declarants statements concerning the contents of another witnesss declaration constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. It also violates the best evidence
24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
GRANTED/ DENIED
this Declaration Neil Sankey rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. claims he did not conduct any searches through or purchase any reports from any of the Reed Defendants; and that he did not obtain Plaintiff Lisa Liberis Social Security number or date of birth from any of the searches run or reports purchased; that he obtained Mrs. Liberis Social Security number and date of birth from Court filings made by Mrs. Liberi, all of which is completely untrue as explained below. Page 15, Lines 12-17 The declarants statements concerning the contents of the 37. Neil Sankey through The document, attached as Exhibit Sankey Firm Inc., using log-in 9, are objectionable to the ID nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com extent that those statements are ran searches through Accurint on inconsistent with the referenced Plaintiff Lisa Liberi on March document and violate the best 16, 2009. See EXHIBIT 9. evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. This search returned Mrs. 1002. As evidenced by the Liberis name, date of birth, unredacted version of the addresses and both her old and document, the purported search new Social Security number. does not disclose Lisa Liberis full social security number. (Miller Decl. 29, Ex. I.) Furthermore, the declarant does not have a factual basis to authenticate the document attached as Exhibit 9. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 901. Page 15, Lines 18-22 The declarants statements concerning the contents of the 38. Neil Sankey attached as document, attached as Exhibit Exhibit A to his Declaration a A to the Sankey Declaration, supposed Court filing claiming are objectionable to the extent Mrs. Liberi filed this Declaration that those statements are with the San Bernardino County inconsistent with the referenced Superior Court in Case FWVdocument and violate the best 028000 and it contained her evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. Social Security number, date of 1002. birth and husbands information. Page 15, Line 23 Page 16, Line Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 7 Plaintiffs provide no explanation on how a San
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration 39. I went to the San Bernardino County Superior Court online at http://www.sbcourt.org/ and accessed Case No. FWV-028000 from the Courts website at http://openaccess.sbcourt.org/OpenAccess/. I accessed the receipts for documents and copies purchased online at http://openaccess.sbcourt.org/OpenAccess/CRIMIN AL/fine.asp?casenumber=FWV0 28000&courtcode =X&defnbr=1608112&defseq=1 &otnmseq=0&dsn=. See EXHIBIT 12. As can be seen, copies of documents located in the file were purchased on May 12, 2009, Receipt No. 200905122255, in the amount of $45.00 and June 20, 2011, Receipt No. 20110620-2397, in the amount of $116.00.
Grounds for Objection Bernardino Superior Courts Fine Information webpage bears on whether certain court filings were publically available more than three years ago. Plaintiffs characterize this Fine Information as reflecting copying costs, but provide no evidentiary basis for this conclusion. It thus constitutes argument that is not based on any facts, and is thus inadmissible for this reason also.
GRANTED/ DENIED
The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 12, and the referenced website are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Furthermore, the declarant does not have a factual basis to authenticate the referenced document. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 901. There is no foundation provided to establish that the document attached as Exhibit 12 is genuine. Fed. R. Evid. 901. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Plaintiffs provide no explanation on how the fact, even if true, that a court filing is not currently available on PACER bears on whether that court filing was available electronically or from the courts physical files more than three years ago.
Page 16, Lines 8-18 40. I also pulled in PACER the Bankruptcy case that Neil Sankey claims to have obtained filings by Mrs. Liberi, which Neil Sankey claims to have obtained Mrs. Liberis Social Security number and date of birth. I attempted to access Schedule D, DN 9 on the Bankruptcy Docket, but was unable to as it was restricted. I then attempted to download each
26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration docket number, again it stated restricted. None of the documents filed in this Bankruptcy case are available online from PACER. When trying to access the documents, I received a notice restricted. See EXHIBIT 13, indicating the documents are sealed.
Grounds for Objection The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 13, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Furthermore, the declarant does not have a factual basis to authenticate the referenced document. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 901. There is no foundation provided to establish that the document attached as Exhibit 13 is genuine. Fed. R. Evid. 901.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 16, Line 19 Page 17, Line Argumentative. Burch v. 2 Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 41. Neil Sankeys Exhibit (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements B to his Declaration, DN 494-2 in declarations based on was not obtained by Neil Sankey speculation or improper legal until after July 11, 2011, either conclusions, or argumentative directly from Orly Taitz or from statements, are not facts and this Courts Docket. On July 11, likewise will not be considered 2011, Peter Cook, Esquire filed on a motion for summary them in this case. See DN 280-4 judgment.). Also, the and Orly Taitz filed them the declarant fails to demonstrate same day, DN 283-5. Mr. Cook that he has any factual basis for also filed a Declaration stating he his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. obtained the Bankruptcy 602. documents in Liberis name from PACER, which is impossible as all the documents are restricted. By reviewing these documents in DN 280-4 and 2835, you see two (2) PACER headers that over-lap each other; identical to the Exhibit B attached to the Declaration of Neil Sankey, DN 494-2, pp. 2-8. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 42. Neil Sankeys Exhibit 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 A appearing as DN 494-1, pp. (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements 2-9 were also obtained from Orly in declarations based on Taitz or downloaded from this speculation or improper legal Page 17, Lines 4-8
27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Courts Docket. Orly Taitz filed this exact document, as depicted on Neil Sankeys Exhibit B, on July 11, 2011. See DN 283-2.
Grounds for Objection conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Also, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 17, Line 9 Page 19, Line 25 43. See the date line below that shows Neil Sankey obtained Plaintiff Liberi and her husbands private data from the Accurint searches and reports purchased, not from a Bankruptcy or Criminal Court filing as he claims. DATE EVENT
March 16, 2009 Neil Sankey ran searches on Lisa Liberi through Accurint. The search returned Name, Addresses, Social Security numbers and date of birth. See Exb. 9 attached hereto. March 16, 2009 Neil Sankey through The Sankey Firm, Inc. obtained a Comprehensive Report on Lisa Liberi. The report included all of Liberis private data, addresses and spouses information. See Exb. 10 attached hereto. April 6, 2009 Neil Sankey through The Sankey Firm, Inc. obtained a Comprehensive Report on Brent Liberi. See Exb. 11 attached hereto.
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Also, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602.
28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration April 10, 2009 Neil Sankey through The Sankey Firm, Inc. sent an Email to Bob Unruh with Lisa Liberis old and new Social Security numbers; date of birth; spouses name, date of birth, Social Security number; friends names and Social Security numbers, etc. See Exb. 14 attached hereto. April 13, 2009 Neil Sankey through The Sankey Firm, Inc. sent Orly Taitz a copy of the Email sent to Bob Unruh on April 10, 2009 with all Liberis private information. See Exb. 15 attached hereto. April 17, 2009 All of Liberis private data was posted all over the Internet by Orly Taitz. May 12, 2009 Documents purchased in Case No. FWV028000 in the San Bernardino County Superior Court by Orly Taitz. See Exb. 12 attached hereto. July 11, 2011 Peter Cook, Esq. and Orly Taitz file supposed pages of a Bankruptcy filing. See DNs 280-4 and 283-5. July 11, 2011 Orly Taitz files the supposed Declaration from San Bernardino County Superior Court. See DN 283- 2. April 4, 2012 Neil Sankey provides the Reed Defendants with a Declaration with the Court documents filed by Peter Cook, Esq. and Orly Taitz on July 11, 2011 as
GRANTED/ DENIED
29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Exhibits A and B to his (Neil Sankey) Declaration, DN 494, 494-1 and 494-2, claiming these are the documents where he obtained Liberis Social Security number, date of birth and husbands information, but as can be seen, Neil Sankey did not have the Court documents until after July 11, 2011. The truth is Neil Sankey obtained Liberis private data from the Reports he obtained from Accurint.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 19, Line 27 Page 20, Line Argumentative. Burch v. 7 Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 44. As admitted by the Reed (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements Defendants in their Motion for in declarations based on Summary Judgment, Neil Sankey speculation or improper legal through The Sankey Firm, Inc. conclusions, or argumentative ran comprehensive reports on statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered Plaintiff Lisa Liberi and her husband Brent on March 16, on a motion for summary 2009; April 6, 2009; April 15, judgment.). Also, the 2009; April 19, 2009; and May 7, declarant fails to demonstrate 2009, before any copies of that he has any factual basis for documents were purchased from his testimony that copies of Case No. FWV-028000 on file court filings were purchased with the San Bernardino County from the bankruptcy and San Superior Court and before Neil Bernardino courts after reports Sankey obtained the supposed were ran on Plaintiffs. Fed. R. Bankruptcy filing from Orly Evid. 602. Taitz or this Courts docket on July 11, 2011. Page 20, Line 8 Page 21, Line 17 45. On April 10, 2009, Neil Sankey from The Sankey Firm, Inc. compiled an Email and sent the Email to Bob Unruh, Reporter with World Net Daily, attached as EXHIBIT 14. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 14, violate the best evidence rule and constitute inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 1002, 802. Furthermore, the declarant does not have a factual basis to authenticate the
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
GRANTED/ DENIED
referenced document. Fed. R. From: Neil SANKEY Evid. 602, 901. [mailto:nsankey@thesankeyfi rm.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:01 AM To: Bob Unruh Subject: LISA LIBERI etc The declarants statements concerning the contents of the Bob here are some bare facts document, attached as Exhibits about Bergs assistant. See 9, 10, 11, are objectionable to below and attachments. the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the I dont know how much of referenced document and the story you have already, violate the best evidence rule. but is essentially about WHO Fed. R. Evid. 1002. As she really is and the questions evidenced by the unredacted versions of those documents, that unfortunately brings up about Berg. the purported searches do not disclose Lisa Liberis full Call, if you need to, at your social security number. (Miller convenience. Decl. Exs. I-K.) Neil Sankey Investigator & Consultant. THE SANKEY FIRM Simi Valley, California 93063 nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com 805 520 3151 818 212 7615 cell (Addendum) LISA RENEE LIBERI. Bn [REDACTED]1965. 4[REDACTED], [REDACTED]4312 (& others) According to the Police she was born COURVILLE and married a Richardson (Possible Alan Douglas Richardson, currently residing in Las Vegas.) IF it was the other way around, then the Courville is Bill Marshall Courville [REDACTED]61 of Houston, Tx. [REDACTED] I have several SS#s for her and a LOT of AKAs. Her real SS# is probably [REDACTED]. Most prominent otherwise are [REDACTED],
31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration [REDACTED], [REDACTED] She went BK in 2002 Her brother is probably Lawrence E Morris of Fontana and Rancho Cuc, CA. He was born [REDACTED]/64 Her Husband, Brent J, a Parolee, I have not researched that. Is probably Brent J McCormack [REDACTED], also uses [REDACTED] There is also a Jerry HELLER and Douglas Cramer look interesting, but where do you stop. This Email, as shown above, contains Mrs. Liberis old and new Social Security number, friends, spouses, etc. that was taken directly from the comprehensive reports and searches conducted in Accurint attached hereto as EXHIBITS 9, 10 and 11.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 21, Line 18 Page 22, Line Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 2 The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibits 46. All of the above information contained in the 14 and 15, are objectionable to Email was sent to Bob Unruh by the extent that those statements Neil Sankey of The Sankey Firm, are inconsistent with the referenced document and Inc. on April 10, 2009 and to Orly Taitz on April 13, 2009. violate the best evidence rule. True and correct copies of Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Sankeys April 13, 2009 Email is Furthermore, the declarant does attached as EXHIBIT 15; not have a factual basis to EXHIBITS 14 and 15 sent authenticate the referenced out by Neil Sankey by and documents. Fed. R. Evid. 602, through The Sankey Firm, Inc. 901. contain information taken directly from the reports obtained by The Sankey Firm, Inc. See EXHIBITS 9, 10 and 11 attached hereto. The supposed Argumentative. Burch v. records obtained from a Regents of the Univ. of Cal., Bankruptcy Court and a Criminal 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 file does not contain the above (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements information that is outlined in the in declarations based on
32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Email sent by Neil Sankey of The Sankey Firm, Inc.
Grounds for Objection speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the referenced documents and websites are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced materials and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 22, Lines 4-17 47. Neil Sankey by and the through The Sankey Firm, Inc.s Email above, is the exact Email located in Orly Taitzs Dossier No. 6, which I received from Orly Taitz on April 17, 2009 and that Orly Taitz sent out to millions of individuals and companies, posted all over the Internet, posted numerous times on Orly Taitz websites at www.orlytaitzesq.com and www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1; sent through Social Networks; mailed through the United States Postal Service; hand delivered; and provided to law enforcement agencies by Orly Taitz in making her false criminal reports against Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberi; sent Internationally; and is still available on the Internet online at http://www.oilforimmigration.or g/facts/?p=1478. Page 22, Lines 18-21
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 48. There is no question, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 Neil Sankey by and through The (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements Sankey Firm, Inc. obtained in declarations based on Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs spouses speculation or improper legal Social Security numbers, dates of conclusions, or argumentative birth and other private data from statements, are not facts and the Reports purchased from likewise will not be considered Accurint. on a motion for summary judgment.). Page 22, Lines 24-25 49. The Reed Defendants have introduced new witnesses Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,
33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration and documents they failed to provide me in discovery.
Grounds for Objection 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 22, Line 27 Page 23, Line Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 23 Plaintiffs discovery-related disputes are irrelevant to 50. The names of Lisa LexisNexis Defendants Simmons and Lisa Policastro and Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibits A, B and C and cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact without attached to Lisa Simmons Declaration were not disclosed in making the required showing the Reed Defendants Initial under Rule 56(d) that, for Disclosures or Plaintiffs specified reasons, they Discovery requests. I asked for cannot present facts essential discovery on all the Reed to justify [their] opposition. Defendants and requested the Plaintiffs have not attempted to identity of individuals with invoke Rule 56(d) in their knowledge of facts relevant to opposition papers. The this case. Lisa Simmons and Lisa declarants statements Policastro were not disclosed or concerning the contents of the produced. Plaintiffs also asked parties correspondence are for the production of documents objectionable to the extent that relevant to this case. The Reed those statements are Defendants failed to identify the inconsistent with the referenced witnesses, Lisa Simmons and documents and violate the best Lisa Policastro or turn over any evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. information or documents, and 1002. instead present them in their Motion for Summary Judgment for the first time, as a tactical advantage over the Plaintiffs. By way of illustration, the following Argumentative. Burch v. unproduced documents were Regents of the Univ. of Cal., attached as exhibits to the 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 Declaration of Lisa Simpson: (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on Application for services speculation or improper legal between Todd Sankey, conclusions, or argumentative The Sankey Firm, Inc. and statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered IRBsearch, LLC; See Exhibit A to the on a motion for summary Declaration of Lisa
34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Simmons; LexisNexis Risk & Analytics Group Application and Agreement attached to the Declaration of Lisa Simmons as Exhibit B; and Accurint and IRBsearch, LLC Re-Seller Agreement attached to the Declaration of Lisa Simmons as Exhibit C.
Grounds for Objection judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 23, Line 24 Page 25, Line Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 11 Plaintiffs discovery-related disputes are irrelevant to 51. All of these types of LexisNexis Defendants documents were the subject of Motion for Summary Judgment specific discovery requests. See, and cannot create a genuine Exhibit 1 (The Reed dispute of material fact. The Defendants Response to declarants statements Interrogatories served upon concerning the contents of the Accurint4) at pages 41-45, parties correspondence are Exhibit 3, Interrogatory No.s objectionable to the extent that 1, 2, 6, 16, 19, 20 and 24 at pages those statements are 57-58, 62, 70-72 and 75-76; inconsistent with the referenced Exhibit 4, Request for documents and violate the best Production No.s 3, 4, 9, 15, 22, evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 25 at pages 85-86, 88-89, 92, 96, 1002. 97 (Plaintiffs January 13, 2012 First Request for Production) Argumentative. Burch v. (requesting, inter alia, Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 All documents with the (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements permissible purpose in declarations based on obtained from each Defendant provided access speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative to the Plaintiffs data and statements, are not facts and all documents reflecting likewise will not be considered the verification on a motion for summary process; judgment.). All contracts, agreements, documents and information concerning agreements and correspondence with third-parties, including but not limited to Merlin,
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Intelius, Inc.to obtain consumer, customers and/or Plaintiffs peoplefinder data, Personal Identifiers, Financial Data, Personal Identifying data, Criminal Data; All documents, data compilations, and tangible things that You may use to support Your defenses to the claims in Plaintiffs complaint; All documents concerning, regarding or referring to theGrammLeach Bliley Act, including but not limited to agreements, requirements, policies, etc.; and All searches performed on any of the Plaintiffs and all Plaintiffs reports sold to third parties; and All documentation, correspondence, information and data, in all forms including electronically, pertaining to Plaintiffs, provided to and shared with all your affiliates, controlled and uncontrolled,rd business aggregates, 3 party entitiesand any other business, corporation.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 52. Plaintiffs have been 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 denied the opportunity to analyze (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements these documents; been denied the in declarations based on ability to depose and examine speculation or improper legal Defendants Employees, Lisa conclusions, or argumentative Simmons and Lisa Policastro; statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered and resellers of the Reed Defendants, including on a motion for summary Page 24, Lines 12-17
36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration IRBsearch, LLC. Page 24, Lines 18-22 53. The Reed Defendants had ample opportunity to disclose this information. The Court should strike these unproduced documents; and the testimony (Declarations) of Lisa Simmons and Lisa Policastro pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Page 24, Lines 23-26 54. The Reed Defendants in their Motion for Summary Judgment again are raising the issues regarding the names of each entity, which was previously addressed by the Court.
Grounds for Objection judgment.). Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 26, Lines 1-8 55. LexisNexis Group is inadvertently named as LexisNexis Group, Inc. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., who is properly named, owns and controls Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint, ChoicePoint, Inc. LexisNexis Group, LexisNexis and LexisNexis Risk Analytics Group, Inc. LexisNexis Group operates LexisNexis.com and Lexis.com, which Plaintiff Lisa Liberi had an account with. All the Reed entities are owned and operated by Reed Elsevier, Inc. Page 26, Lines 9-23
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements 56. As confirmed by concerning the contents of the Adriano Hrvatin, Esquire, parties correspondence are counsel for the Reed Defendants, objectionable to the extent that
37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration The Reed entities named in this lawsuit changed their name after the events took place. In an Email to me on August 5, 2011. See EXHIBIT 16, Mr. Hrvatin stated: Any claim based on the sale of an Accurint report or reports in 2009 should be made against "LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. f/k/a Seisint, Inc." Until January 1, 2010, one Reed subsidiary was named LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group Inc.... Effective January 1, 2010, the name of that corporation was changed to LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. Since January 1, 2010, LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. has operated the Accurint business. That corporation, though, was not the one involved in the Accurint business at the time Mr. Sankey was alleged to have obtained an Accurint report or reports about the plaintiffs. Until January 1, 2010, the Accurint operations (including database maintenance and report preparation) were conducted by Seisint, Inc., a corporation that has since changed its name to LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc.
Grounds for Objection those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 26, Line 25 Page 27, Line Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 12 Argumentative. Burch v. 57. These claims by the Regents of the Univ. of Cal., Reed Defendants were made in Supp. 2d their Motion to Dismiss, DN 381 433 F.Cal. 2006)1110, 1119 (E.D. ([s]tatements filed September 16, 2011. in declarations based on Plaintiffs in their Opposition to speculation or improper legal the Reed Defendants Motion to conclusions, or argumentative Dismiss sought Leave to Amend statements, are not facts and their Complaint to correct the
38
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration names of the entities. This Court in its Ruling of October 17, 2011, DN 414, Granting in part and Denying in part the Reed Defendants Motion to Dismiss Denied Plaintiffs Leave to Amend and stated on page 8: Although the Court agrees that the FAC is shoddy and overlong, it does not find that it is so poorly-defined or unnavigable that it fails to provide the Reed Defendants with sufficient notice as to the charges brought against them. The Court itself is confused as to the relationship between the separate Reed Defendants, and does not believe that a self-elected, complicated corporate structure should block litigation. It appears from the Reed Defendants own Motion that they can decipher which Defendant did what, based on their knowledge of their own corporate structure. Similarly, while a specific Claim analyzed below might lack individualized support, the FAC as a whole raises sufficient factual matter to survive a general attack against it. [emphasis added], Page 27, Lines 13-23 58. The Reed Defendants in their Motion for Summary Judgment claim none of the Sankey Defendants had an account directly with any of them. This is disputed in Todd Sankeys Motion to Withdraw their Admissions deemed admitted filed Friday, April 13, 2012 and appears as DN 496-1 at pp. 8-9, c, d and e where Todd Sankey and The
Grounds for Objection likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
39
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Sankey Firm, Inc. discuss their password to Lexis; and accessing the Lexis database, which contradicts Neil Sankeys statements in his Declaration and the Reed Defendants claims regarding the Sankeys accounts and furnishing the Sankeys Plaintiffs consumer reports.
Grounds for Objection Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
The declarants assertion that an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA is argumentative and an improper use of a declaration. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Page 27, Line 24 Page 28, Line Argumentative. Burch v. 4 Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 59. The Reed Defendants in (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements their Motion for Summary in declarations based on Judgment claim none of the speculation or improper legal entities named in Plaintiffs First conclusions, or argumentative Amended Complaint are statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered Consumer/Credit Reporting Agencies and do not sell on a motion for summary consumer/credit reports. judgment.). However, Exhibit A attached to the Declaration of Lisa Simmons in support of their MSJ speaks for itself and discredits the Reed Defendants claims regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Page 28, Line 5 Page 29, Line 9 60. Lisa Simmons Exhibit A attached to declaration, DN 492-1 is The Sankey Firm, Inc. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit A to the Simmons Declaration, are objectionable to the extent
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration and Todd Sankeys application for an account with IRBsearch, LLC. In this Application prepared and signed by Defendant Todd Sankey, Todd Sankey marked several boxes for his permissible purpose or legal entitlement. Of interest, and confirming the reports were prepared and sold as consumer reports as defined by the FCRA, are the following boxes marked by Todd Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc.s for their permissible purposes to receive reports and information: SECTION C i. 1(B) As necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer by verifying the identification information contained in applications for employment, housing or insurance; ii. 8. To the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right in Financial Privacy Act of 1976, to law enforcement agencies (including a Federal function regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury, a State Insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission), selfregulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to safety. SECTION E iii. 2. To verify the accuracy of information about a
Grounds for Objection that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration person who provided the information to you (or to your client) but only if used to recover on a debt against the person or pursue legal remedies against the person for fraud; and iv. 5. Use by an Insurer (or its agent) in connection with claims investigation activities, antifraud activities, rating or underwriting. Reports for Employment, debt collection, and Insurance are all consumer reports governed by the FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(1)(A); 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(1)(B); 15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)(3)(A); 15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)(3)(B); and 15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)(3)(C). Page 29, Lines 10-12 61. The Reed Defendants claim they do not prepare or sell credit reports. Consumer and credit reports are the same reports as defined by the FCRA.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 29, Line 13 Page 30, Line Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 22 Voluntary settlements of matters not involving the 62. Contrary to their Plaintiffs or the Accurint statements, each and every Reed reports that are at issue here are Defendant has settled Fair Credit not relevant to LexisNexis Reporting Act cases for FCRA Defendants Motion for violations. Just to list a few out Summary Judgment. of the hundreds of cases, See: Argumentative. Burch v. Seoane v. LexisNexis Risk Regents of the Univ. of Cal., Solutions FL, Inc., et al, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 U.S.D.C., Southern District of
42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration California, Case No. 3:11-cv-00908-L WMC
GRANTED/ DENIED
(E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal Heaton v. Reed Elsevier, Inc., conclusions, or argumentative Seisint, Inc., LexisNexis Risk & statements, are not facts and Information Management Group, likewise will not be considered Inc., et al. on a motion for summary U.S.D.C., District of South judgment.). Carolina, Case No. 3:10-cv-00274-JFA Thoman v. Reed Elsevier, Inc., LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group, Inc., et al. U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 3:09-cv-00559-JAG Dunn v. Reed Elsevier, Inc., et al U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 3:09-cv-00486-JAG Dinwiddie v. LexisNexis U.S.D.C., Northern District of Georgia, Case No. 1:10-cv-03516-RLV ECS United States v. ChoicePoint, Inc., No. 1:06-CV-0198 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2006), United States v. ChoicePoint, Inc., No. 1:06-CV-0198-JTC (N.D. Ga. Oct. 14, 2009) Miller v. Seisint Inc. d/b/a Accurint U.S.D.C., Northern Indiana, Case No. 1:07-cv-00230-PPSRBC Witriol v. LexisNexis Group, C05-02392 MJJ, 2006 WL 4725713 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2006) Goode v. LexisNexis Risk & Info. Analytics Group, Inc., 2:11-CV2950-JD, 2012 WL 975043 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2012)
43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Payne v. Trans Union, LLC, CIV.A. 09-0568, 2010 WL 1254298 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010) Other Defendants include LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group Inc. and Reed Elsevier Inc. Knechtel v. Choicepoint, Inc., No. 085018 (D.N.J. Nov. 23, 2009) Other Defendants included LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group, Inc., and Reed Elsevier, Inc. Carlton v. Choicepoint, Inc., No. 085779 (D.N .J. Nov. 23, 2009) Other Defendants included LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group, Inc., and Reed Elsevier, Inc. Marricone v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 091123 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 9, 2009). Other Defendants included LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group, Inc. and Reed Elsevier, Inc.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 39, Line 24 Page 31, Line Argumentative. Burch v. 2 Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 63. The Reed Defendants are (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in the business of assembling, in declarations based on evaluating, selling and speculation or improper legal distributing consumer credit conclusions, or argumentative information and other personal statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered and confidential consumer on a motion for summary information obtained from Governmental, State and other judgment.). entities, distributing consumer credit reports and other private Additionally, the declarant fails consumer information to third to demonstrate that he has any parties and organizations for factual basis for his testimony. profit through Interstate Fed. R. Evid. 602. The Commerce. declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402,
44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 64. Information contained on 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 each individual by the Reed (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements Defendants includes but is not in declarations based on limited to Social Security speculation or improper legal Numbers; Family names; conclusions, or argumentative Addresses; telephone numbers; statements, are not facts and Relatives names and Addresses; likewise will not be considered Places of Birth; Mothers Maiden on a motion for summary Names; Dates of Birth; judgment.). Employers; Income; banking information; Home prices and Additionally, the declarant fails values; Marriage information; to demonstrate that he has any criminal records; credit records factual basis for his testimony. including but not limited to Fed. R. Evid. 602. The judgments, liens and declarant's opinion concerning bankruptcies, etc.; Insurance records; medical records; friends these matters is irrelevant and and associates names, addresses, constitutes improper opinion telephone numbers, etc.; business testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701. contacts, civil and bankruptcy filing information; and many other instances of private data on individuals. Page 31, Lines 4-15 Page 31, Line 16 Page 32, Line Argumentative. Burch v. 2 Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 65. The Reed Defendants (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements own, possess and maintain in declarations based on computer databases of consumer speculation or improper legal identity and credit information conclusions, or argumentative for use in generating and statements, are not facts and providing background and credit likewise will not be considered reports and in verifying on a motion for summary information supplied by judgment.). individuals and businesses as part of business transactions, Additionally, the declarant fails such as debt collectors, credit, insurance, private investigation, to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. employment and/or housing Fed. R. Evid. 602. The applications. Defendants declarant's opinion concerning databases include the credit activity and personal identifying these matters is irrelevant and data of millions of individuals in constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, the United States, including Plaintiffs. The Reed Defendants 701. obtain the information contained
45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration within their databases from other entities such as other Financial Institutions, State and Federal Government agencies; Mortgage Companies; Utility companies; Banks; and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 66. The Reed Defendants 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 sell consumer reports and other (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements personal information to third in declarations based on parties. In so doing they speculation or improper legal communicate information conclusions, or argumentative relating to consumers statements, are not facts and creditworthiness, credit standing, likewise will not be considered credit capacity, character, on a motion for summary general reputation, personal judgment.). characteristics, family ties and/or mode of living. The information Additionally, the declarant fails is used or expected to be used by to demonstrate that he has any Defendants and third parties to factual basis for his testimony. serve as a factor in establishing Fed. R. Evid. 602. The consumers eligibility for declarant's opinion concerning personal, family or household credit, insurance, housing and/or these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion employment. testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701. Page 32, Lines 4-12 Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 67. The information and 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 reports that the Reed and Intelius (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements Defendants furnish and sell to in declarations based on third parties constitute speculation or improper legal Consumer Reports within the conclusions, or argumentative meaning of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered 1681a(d), and the California equivalents, CCRAA, California on a motion for summary Civil Code 1785.3(c). judgment.). Page 32, Lines 13-18 Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402,
46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 68. The Reed Defendants 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 sell and furnish these consumer (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements reports to their business in declarations based on customers, in interstate speculation or improper legal commerce, for monetary fees and conclusions, or argumentative dues. Each of the Reed statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered Defendants are a Consumer Reporting Agency within the on a motion for summary meaning of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. judgment.). 1681a(f), and a Consumer Credit Reporting Agency within Additionally, the declarant fails the meaning of the CCRAA, to demonstrate that he has any California Civil Code factual basis for his testimony. 1785.3(d). Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701. Page 32, Lines 19-25 Page 32, Line 26 Page 33, Line Argumentative. Burch v. 2 Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 69. As narrowly defined in (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements the FCRA 1681b; CCRAA, in declarations based on California Civil Code 1785.11 speculation or improper legal and the ICRAA, California Civil conclusions, or argumentative Code 1786.12, the Reed statements, are not facts and Defendants may furnish and sell likewise will not be considered Consumer Reports and/or Files on a motion for summary to any person or entity for judgment.). limited purposes only. Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701. Page 33, Lines 4-11 70. The Reed Defendants sold Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119
47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration and sell, without any type of verification process or permissible purpose Plaintiffs private data to the Sankey Defendants and IRBsearch, LLC for resell who in turns sold and sells consumers consumer reports, with their private data, including the Plaintiffs to anyone with a credit card without any type of consent from the consumer, the consumers knowledge, verification process and/or permissible purpose.
Grounds for Objection (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 71. The Reed Defendants 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 were notified by Ostella and (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements Liberi that they maintained in declarations based on incorrect information on the speculation or improper legal Plaintiffs in their files. The Reed conclusions, or argumentative Defendants refused to investigate statements, are not facts and and/or correct the information likewise will not be considered contained in their databases on a motion for summary pertaining to the Plaintiffs judgment.). consumer reports, all of which was done in violation of the Additionally, the declarant fails FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b). to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701. Page 33, Lines 12-18 Page 33, Line 19 Page 34, Line Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 2 72. The Reed Defendants have admitted they are governed by the Graham Leach Bliley Act [GLBA], 15 U.S.C. 1681, et. seq. The GLBA allows
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119
48
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration disclosure of financial information under limited circumstances. Each time a consumers financial data is sought; the financial Institution must notify the consumer and allow them the opportunity to opt-out of their information being provided to the company. There are limited circumstances in which a company, like Accurint or any of the other Reed Defendants may obtain information from a financial institution, without notice to the consumer, none of which any of the Reed Defendants qualify for except as being a consumer credit reporting agency.
Grounds for Objection (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701.
Page 34, Lines 4-13 73. The Reed Defendants failed to establish reasonable security precautions or maintain reasonable administrative procedures to preclude the selling, disclosing and/or distribution of the Plaintiffs consumer reports and confidential information to the unauthorized third parties, including but not limited to Neil Sankey, Todd Sankey and The Sankey Firm, Inc.; and other private investigative entities and individuals, who in turn used the information to carry out their threats against the Plaintiffs; place the Plaintiffs and their families in dangerous situations; and to destroy the Plaintiffs and their credit data. Page 34, Lines 15-25
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 74. The Reed Defendants 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 have, without authorization; (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements consent; or a permissible purpose in declarations based on
49
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration disclosed Plaintiffs consumer reports; financial information; family information; and personal identifying information to unauthorized third parties with no permissible purpose(s) for receiving and using such information. The Reed and Intelius Defendants released this information, by their own admission, to IRBsearch, LLC, Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm, Inc., and Todd Sankey, who provided it to Defendant Orly Taitz, in order for Orly Taitz to carry out her threats to harm and destroy the Plaintiffs, which she did.
Grounds for Objection speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 34, Line 26 Page 35, Line Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 5 75. Plaintiffs sought their reports from each of these Defendants. Plaintiff Ostella received an incomplete report from Lexis, nothing from the other Defendants; Ostellas spouse did not receive a report from any of the Defendants; Plaintiff Liberi was not provided any of her reports from any of these Defendants, nor was her husband. The only thing Liberi received was a letter from Accurint, sent from LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. stating she did not have an Accurint file.
Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701. Page 35, Lines 6-15 Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration 76. The entire basis of the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is based on their claims they are not a consumer reporting agency and do not sell consumer reports as defined by the FCRA. But, Accurint admits to selling Plaintiffs reports to IRBsearch, LLC, who they claim sold the reports to Neil Sankey and The Sankey Firm, Inc. The Reed Defendants claim they have agreements with IRBsearch, LLC that the information obtained from the Accurint databases is not to be used for FCRA purposes. Page 35, Lines 16-21 77. The Reed Defendants failed to take protective actions with their partners and thirdparty vendors to protect the private confidential identifying information and consumer/credit reports of the Plaintiffs in violation of the California Information Practices Act, California Civil Code 1798.81.5(c).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701.
Page 35, Line 22 Page 36, Line Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 2 78. On or about February 28, 2010, I sent letters to the Reed Defendants informing Argumentative. Burch v. Defendants of their breaches and Regents of the Univ. of Cal., the damages suffered by the 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119
51
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Plaintiffs. My letter explained how Plaintiffs were victims of serious crimes as a result of the breach and therefore, Plaintiffs and their counsel demanded to have all their confidential information and their families confidential information removed from the Reed Defendants databases.
Grounds for Objection (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701.
Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Page 36, Lines 4-5 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
79. Linda Clark, Esquire with LexisNexis Group, Inc. (LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.) agreed to remove Plaintiffs data Argumentative. Burch v. from the front view only. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
52
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Page 36, Lines 7-18
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Also, the declarants statements 80. After Defendant concerning the contents of LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. parties correspondence are (LexisNexis Group) received my objectionable to the extent that those statements are letter of February 28, 2010, Linda Clark, Director and Sr. inconsistent with the referenced Corporate Counsel of LexisNexis documents and violate the best Group (LexisNexis Risk evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. Solutions, Inc.) called and set a 1002. telephone conference. During this conference, Linda Clark stated they too were victims referring to the illegal acts of Neil Sankey, Todd Sankey and Argumentative. Burch v. The Sankey Firm, Inc. Linda Regents of the Univ. of Cal., Clark also asked what my clients 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 wanted, that they would not pay (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements a lot of money, but would pay in declarations based on something. These statements speculation or improper legal were confirmed to Linda Clark conclusions, or argumentative when a draft copy of the FTC statements, are not facts and Complaint was sent to her. At no likewise will not be considered time did Linda Clark deny her on a motion for summary statements. judgment.).
Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Page 36, Lines 19-27 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
81. On or about April 28, 2010 the Reed Defendants were served with a Subpoena. The Subpoena was seeking all searches conducted by Neil Sankey, Todd Sankey, The Sankey Firm, Inc. and the other Defendants on Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella. I received a letter from Jennifer L. Jung, Director and Sr. Counsel over the Information Technology Division of the Lexis Argumentative. Burch v. Corporations located in Ohio, Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,
53
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration with a bunch of objections, and refused to comply with the Subpoena.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Page 37, Lines 1-4 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Also, the declarants statements 82. Another phone concerning the contents of appointment was set by Linda parties correspondence are Clark for May 18, 2010 with objectionable to the extent that Jennifer L. Jung. During this call, those statements are I notified Ms. Clark and Ms. inconsistent with the referenced Jung that Plaintiff Lisa Liberi documents and violate the best had a Lexis account. evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Page 37, Lines 5-18 83. Thereafter, the Reed Defendants through their Director and Sr. Corporate Counsel in Ohio, Jennifer L. Jung, retaliated against Plaintiff Lisa Liberi for filing complaints with their Corporations. After the May 18, 2010 telephone conference, Jennifer L. Jung shut down Plaintiff Liberis Lexis account and gave false information to Plaintiff Liberis school claiming Plaintiff Liberi was using her Lexis account commercially. Plaintiff Liberi attempted to renew her Lexis subscription to further her education, but was refused and had to cancel all her advanced Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. None of the information contained in this paragraph of Declarants declaration relates to any of the remaining claims in the First Amended Complaint. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
54
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration and continuing educational courses. The Reed Defendants knew this information was false, but did it to penalize Plaintiff Liberi and cause her severe damages for daring to file complaints against them.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 37, Line 19 Page 38, Line Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 2 Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of the 84. The Reed Defendants are referenced documents are all bound by three (3) Federal objectionable to the extent that Trade Commission (FTC) those statements are stipulated Court Orders to ensure inconsistent with the the protection of parties private documents and violate the best data, due to numerous other evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. breaches in the security of 1002. individuals data. See U.S. v. ChoicePoint, Inc., Case No. 06cv-0198, FTC File No. 0523069; Court Order of February 15, 2006; U.S. v. ChoicePoint, Argumentative. Burch v. Inc., Case No. 06-cv-0198 Regents of the Univ. of Cal., Supplemental Court Order of 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 October 14, 2009; and In the (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements Matter of Reed Elsevier, Inc. and in declarations based on Seisint, Inc. Corporations, FTC speculation or improper legal File No. 052-3094, Docket No. conclusions, or argumentative C-4226 Court Order of July 29, statements, are not facts and 2008. likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
Page 38, Lines 4-15 85. It was pointed out to the Reed Defendants during our conversations that they were in clear violations of these three (3) Court Orders by their disclosure of Plaintiffs consumer/credit reports containing their private identifying data. Linda Clark stated that the FTC Orders were old and they (Defendants) simply agreed to them. It is and was very apparent, the Reed
55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration Defendants had and have absolutely no regard for the privacy or security of Plaintiffs consumer/credit reports containing their private data and had and have absolutely no intent in complying with the FTC Orders against them at the cost of Plaintiffs privacy and security of their consumer/credit reports containing their private data. Page 38, Lines 16-19 86. In the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, they seek Judgment based on Neil Sankeys Declaration and false perjured statements. This should not be permitted by the Court.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 38, Line 20 Page 39, Line The declarants statements 12 concerning the contents of the referenced documents and websites are objectionable to 87. The Reed Defendants, including Accurint, market their the extent that those statements reports to the Insurance and are inconsistent with the Credit Collection industry. materials. The declarant also Attached as EXHIBIT 17 is has no foundation to Accurints advertisement of their authenticate the referenced reports for sale to the Debt documents, attached as Collection market, which I Exhibits 17 and 18. obtained by going to Accurints website at lacks http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/s The declarant testifyanyto the foundation to as olutions/contact-locate/skipLexisNexis Defendants tracing-accurintcollections.aspx; advertising. The declarant also and http://www.lexisnexis.com/ does not attempt to connect the risk/downloads/casestudy/ advertising to any issue midpoint.pdf and took screen relevant to this case. shots (pictures) of the pages. Attached as EXHIBIT 18 is Accurints advertisement of their Argumentative. Burch v. reports for sale to the Insurance Regents of the Univ. of Cal., Industry, which I obtained by 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 going to Accurints website at (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/ in declarations based on downloads/literature/accurintspeculation or improper legal
56
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Berg Declaration insurance.pdf and downloading the PDF file. The Reed Defendants are a Consumer/Credit Reporting Agency and they sell consumer/credit reports as explained herein and in Plaintiffs Memorandum in opposition to the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment.
Grounds for Objection conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarants assertions regarding whether any one of the LexisNexis Defendants is a credit reporting agency or issued a consumer report are an improper use of a declaration. Moreover, whether any one of the LexisNexis Defendants or their parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates provide some product which may be subject to the FCRA is irrelevant unless the products at issue in this action are such products. The declarant provides no facts to suggest that they are, so testimony about the FCRA or other non-FCRA actions by some entity are irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
GRANTED/ DENIED
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF LISA LIBERI Objections to Liberi Declaration Page 1, Line 25- Page 2, Line 4. 1. I have read through Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis; ChoicePoint, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk & Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; and Seisint, Inc. d/b/a Accurint [Accurint] collectively Reed Defendants] Motion for Summary Judgment, Declarations in support thereof; their Uncontroverted Facts; and all the Reed Defendants discovery responses to our
GRANTED/ DENIED
57
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration requested Discovery. Page 2, Lines 5-8 2. I never met or talked with Neil Sankey, Todd Sankey, Sankey Investigations, Inc. or the Sankey Firm, Inc., nor had I ever heard of them prior to the events leading up to the within lawsuit.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 3. As we have always stated, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 and as now confirmed by the (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements Reed Defendants in their Motion in declarations based on for Summary Judgment [MSJ], speculation or improper legal Neil Sankey utilized his son, conclusions, or argumentative Todd Sankeys and the Sankey statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered Firm, Inc.s accounts to obtain our consumer reports containing on a motion for summary our private data. As a result of judgment.). the unlawful disclosures of our private data from the Reed Defendants and Accurint, my husband and I have been severely damaged and we cannot fix the damages caused by these Defendants. Page 2, Lines 9-18 Page 2, Line 19 Page 3, Line 2 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements 4. Prior to the filing of this concerning the contents of the Declaration, Todd Sankey and referenced documents are the Sankey Firm, Inc. filed what objectionable to the extent that they called a Motion to those statements are Withdraw Admissions pursuant inconsistent with the to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). In their documents and violate the best Memorandum, Todd Sankey and evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. the Sankey Firm admit that Todd 1002. Sankey and the Sankey in fact had a Lexis password, see the Sankeys Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Docket No. 4961, Pages 8-9, paragraphs (c), (d), and (e). This statement by Todd Argumentative. Burch v. Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Regents of the Univ. of Cal., Inc. shows Neil Sankeys 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 Declaration was dishonest, as are (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements the statements of the Reed in declarations based on Defendants in their Motion for speculation or improper legal
58
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration Summary Judgment claiming none of the Sankeys had accounts with the Reed Defendants.
Grounds for Objection conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 3, Lines 4-9 5. Shortly after Mr. Berg and I declined assistance to Orly Taitz, Orly Taitz used the power of the Internet stating she was going to take Mr. Berg down and to do so she was going to destroy and get rid of me. Orly Taitz has admitted this in Court filings; see true and correct copies on file with this Court as DNs 190-3, p. 20 through 190-25, pp. 896-985 and DN 190-27, p. 1043.
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and
59
Page 3, Lines 11-13 6. Orly Taitz through Neil Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc. began putting out a supposed criminal record which they stated was my rap sheet. I ignored this as I thought it was nothing more than a bullys school yard tactic.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration
Grounds for Objection likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 7. On March 16, 2009, Neil Sankey through the Sankey Firm, 1, are objectionable to the Inc. conducted searches of my extent that those statements are name and address through inconsistent with the referenced Accurint. The search was document and violate the best conducted using my name and evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. address and the result of the 1002. search only pertained to me and contained by name, addresses, date of birth, and both my old and new Social Security numbers, see a true and correct attached as EXHIBIT 1. The As evidenced by the unredacted search was conducted directly version of the document, the through Accurint, see the bottom purported search does not left of the Page. EXHIBIT 1 disclose Lisa Liberis full was received unredacted from social security number. (Miller the Sankey Defendants. The Decl. 29, Ex. I.) search results also contained names that had never been mine nor had I ever used associated to Also, the declarant fails to my Social Security numbers, demonstrate that she has any dates of birth and address. factual basis for testifying that the purported search was conducted directly through Accurint. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The statement in this regard constitutes argument, and is thus inadmissible. Furthermore, whether or not the search results included names or other personal information not belonging to the declarant is irrelevant. It would be improper to draw any inference of wrongdoing on LexisNexis Defendants part from that fact, even if true, because declarant does not have personal knowledge about how information is gathered and generated in response to a search in an Accurint database. Indeed, the fact attested to by declarant supports that this was
Page 3, Lines 15-24
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection not a search on her personally. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 8. On March 16, 2009, Neil 2, are objectionable to the Sankey through the Sankey Firm, extent that those statements are Inc. also obtained a inconsistent with the referenced comprehensive report on me document and violate the best through IRBsearch, LLC and evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. Accurint. This comprehensive 1002. As evidenced by the Report included my name, Social unredacted version of the Security numbers, date of birth; document, the purported search my husbands name, Social does not disclose Lisa Liberis Security number, date of birth; full social security number. my employment; my cell phone (Miller Decl. 29, Ex. J.) number and carrier, which were unlisted and unpublished; my parents names, addresses, Social Argumentative. Burch v. Security numbers, dates of birth; Regents of the Univ. of Cal., real estate I owned or had 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 owned; bankruptcies; debts; (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements criminal records; property value; in declarations based on income; education; sisters name, speculation or improper legal addresses, Social Security conclusions, or argumentative number, date of birth and friends statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered of my sister also with names, addresses, dates of birth and on a motion for summary Social Security numbers; my in- judgment.). laws names, dates of births, Social Security numbers, addresses, including that of my sister and brother-in-law, Brandy and Jeremiah Heller, their relatives private data, etc., see a true and correct copy attached as EXHIBIT 2. EXHIBIT 2 was received from the Sankey
61
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration Defendants in unredacted form. Page 4, Lines 18-26
GRANTED/ DENIED
The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 9. On April 6, 2009, Neil Sankey obtained a 3, are objectionable to the comprehensive report on my extent that those statements are husband, Brent. This inconsistent with the referenced comprehensive report shows the document and violate the best same private data as mine; evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. including bankruptcy and debts; 1002. As evidenced by the and his sister and brother-in-law, unredacted version of the Brandy and Jeremiah Heller see document, the purported search a true and correct copy attached does not disclose Lisa Liberis as EXHIBIT 3. EXHIBIT full social security number. 3 was received from the Sankey (Miller Decl. 29, Ex. K.) Defendants in unredacted form. My husbands report also contains names that were never Argumentative. Burch v. his and that he never used Regents of the Univ. of Cal., associated with his date of birth 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 and Social Security number. (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Furthermore, Brent Liberi is not a party to this action and, therefore, the document is not relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Page 5, Lines 1-15
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements 10. On April 10, 2009, Neil concerning the contents of the Sankey through the Sankey Firm, document, attached as Exhibit Inc. sent an Email to Bob Unruh, 4, violate the best evidence rule a Reporter with World Net Daily. and constitute inadmissible This Email contained my name; hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 1002, a partial of my old Social 802. Furthermore, the Security number; my full new declarant does not have a Social Security number issued to factual basis to authenticate the me in 2000; my date of birth; my referenced document. Fed. R.
62
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Grounds for Objection Declaration husbands name, date of birth Evid. 602, 901. and Social Security number; friends and relatives of mine, their names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth and a note that Sankey stated There is also a Jerry HELLER and Douglas Cramer look interesting, but where do you stop?, see a true and correct copy of this Email attached as EXHIBIT 4. EXHIBIT 4 was sent out by Sankey and Taitz and is still available on the Internet in unredacted form. As can be seen all the information contained in this Email was obtained from the comprehensive reports attached hereto as EXHIBITS 2 and 3. Page 5, Lines 16-20 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements 11. Neil Sankey through the concerning the contents of the Sankey Firm, Inc. forwarded the document, attached as Exhibit above Email to Orly Taitz on 5, are objectionable to the April 13, 2009, see a true and extent that those statements are correct copy attached as inconsistent with the referenced EXHIBIT 5. EXHIBIT 5 document and violate the best was sent out by Sankey and Taitz evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. in unredacted form and is still 1002. Furthermore, the available on the Internet. declarant does not have a factual basis to authenticate the referenced document. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 901.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants attempt to relate what might be stated in 12. On April 17, 2009 Orly other documents or on websites violates the best evidence rule Taitz began publishing on her and is inadmissible hearsay. websites at http://www.repubx.com; Fed. R. Evid. 1002, 802. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blo Declarants statements about g1; http://www.orlytaitzesq.com; those documents and websites and all over the Internet on other are also objectionable to the websites; through her Social extent that they are inconsistent
63
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration network sites, e.g. Facebook, beforeitsnews.com, etc.; through twitter; by mass emailing; postal mailing; hand delivery; sent to numerous Federal and State law enforcement agencies; and sent out repeatedly including Internationally. What Orly Taitz called Dossier No. 6. Taitzs Dossier No. 6 contained the unredacted Email she received from Neil Sankey on April 13, 2009 with mine and my husbands private data unredacted. True and correct copies of Taitzs Dossier No. 6 is on file with this Court; see DN 190-3, pp. 220-233; DN 190-4, pp. 234- 246; DN 190-10, pp. 473-488; and DN 190-24, pp. 938-942, which are true and correct copies of Orly Taitzs Dossier No. 6. This document also appears in the docket numerous times in previous filings going back to May 2009, which are also true and correct copies. Taitzs Dossier No. 6 with Neil Sankeys unredacted Emails are still available online at http://www.oilforimmigration.or g/facts/?p=1478. Page 6, Lines 16-22 13. Orly Taitzs Dossier No. 6 was filed in her different Court cases through the ECF filing system, including the Honorable David O. Carters Court in Barnett, et, al. v. Obama, et, al., Case number 8:09-cv-00082DOC-AN on September 21, 2009, Docket Number [DN] 69. Judge Carter sealed the documents on September 30, 2009, see DN 77. Page 6, Line 23 Page 7, Line 4
Grounds for Objection with the referenced materials.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
The declarants statements concerning the contents of

64
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration 14. Neil Sankey states in his Declaration filed in support of the Reed Defendants MSJ, DNs 494, 494-1 and 494-2 that he obtained my Social Security number from a Declaration I filed in a criminal case; and from a bankruptcy filing and that he did not obtain it from any reports obtained from Accurint, this is untrue. These documents Neil Sankey is referring to were filed by Orly Taitz and her Attorney Jeffrey Cook on July 11, 2011, see DNs 280-4, 280-2, and 2835, which we objected to. Page 7, Lines 5-12
Grounds for Objection another witness declaration are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Additionally, declarants testimony regarding the fact that the referenced documents were also filed in this case by Orly Taitz is irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
GRANTED/ DENIED
The declarant fails to demonstrate that she has any 15. Neil Sankeys Exhibit factual basis for her testimony A, DN 494-1 and Exhibit B, that the Sankey Defendants DN 494-2 were obtained from obtained the referenced court this Courts Docket after they filings for the first time from were filed by Orly Taitz and this court docket. Fed. R. Evid. Peter Cook, Esq. on July 11, 602. To reach this conclusion 2011, over 2 years after Neil based solely on the fact that the Sankey through the Sankey Firm, documents have been Inc. purchased consumer reports previously filed in this case on me and my husband and sent would be improper speculation. out his Email with mine and my Fed. R. Evid. 402. husbands private data, see EXHIBITS 1, 2, 3, and 4 attached hereto. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the referenced documents are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on
65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 7, Lines 13-22 16. Orly Taitzs filing, DN 283-2 filed July 11, 2011, is the document Neil Sankey attaches to his Declaration as Exhibit A, DN 494-1. If you look at Neil Sankeys Exhibit A, you will see the PACER header from Orly Taitzs filing of DN 283-2 filed on July 11, 2011. Thus, Neil Sankey did not obtain this document until after July 11, 2011, which was over two years after he purchased comprehensive reports on me and my husband and over two years after he sent the Email with our private data to Bob Unruh and Orly Taitz.
The declarant fails to demonstrate that she has any factual basis for her testimony that the Sankey Defendants obtained the referenced court filings for the first time from this court docket. Fed. R. Evid. 602. To reach this conclusion based solely on the fact that the documents have been previously filed in this case by Orly Taitz and that the exhibits to the Sankey Declaration include PACER header from this case would be improper speculation. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
The declarants statements concerning the contents of the referenced documents are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
66
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration Page 7, Line 23 Page 8, Line 5
GRANTED/ DENIED
The declarant fails to demonstrate that she has any 17. Peter Cooks filing, DN factual basis for her testimony 280-4 and Orly Taitzs filing, that the Sankey Defendants DN 283-5 filed July 11, 2011 are obtained the referenced court the supposed bankruptcy filings for the first time from Pages, and at the top of each this court docket. Fed. R. Evid. Page it has PACER headers 602. To reach this conclusion over-lapping each other, based solely on the fact that the identically to Neil Sankeys documents have been Exhibit B, DN 494-2. This previously filed in this case shows that Neil Sankey obtained would be improper speculation. these Pages from the Courts Fed. R. Evid. 402. Docket after they were filed by Peter Cook, Esq. and Orly Taitz on July 11, 2011, which again was two years after Neil Sankey purchased the comprehensive reports on me and my husband The declarants statements and over two years after he sent concerning the contents of the out his Email to Bob Unruh and referenced documents are Orly Taitz with our private data. objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 18. Neil Sankeys statements 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 that he obtained my Social (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements Security number and husbands in declarations based on data from a bankruptcy filing or speculation or improper legal supposed Declaration filed by conclusions, or argumentative me in a criminal case are statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered untruthful and falsified as Page 8, Lines 6-12
67
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Grounds for Objection Declaration explained above and as shown by on a motion for summary Neil Sankeys Exhibits and the judgment.). filings of Peter Cook, Esq. and Orly Taitz on July 11, 2011, DNs 280-4, 283-2, and 283-5. Page 8, Lines 13-26 19. The Reed Defendants admit that their company, Accurint, sold reports on me and my husband to Neil Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc. on March 16, 2009; April 6, 2009; April 15, 2009; April 19, 2009; and May 7, 2009, see the Reed Defendants MSJ at p. 8, paragraph C (a). The Reed Defendants all have refused to turn over the reports in which they sold on me and my husband to Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm, Inc. and IRBsearch, LLC. The Sankey Defendants furnished the reports in which they searched and purchased on March 16, 2009, see EXHIBITS 1 and 2 attached hereto; and the report they purchased on my husband on April 6, 2009, see EXHIBIT 3 attached hereto. The Sankey Defendants have refused to turn over the other reports. LexisNexis Defendants object to the extent that Plaintiffs' statements concerning the contents of the LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment are inconsistent with the document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. In fact, the LexisNexis Defendants never admitted to selling reports on the declarant to Neil Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 9, Lines 1-4 20. The Reed Defendants MSJ is premised on their false statements that they are not a credit reporting agency and do not sell consumer
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative
68
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration reports governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Grounds for Objection statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
The declarants assertions regarding whether any of the LexisNexis Defendants is a credit reporting agency or a consumer report are an improper use of a declaration. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Page 9, Lines 5-19
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Whether any one of the 21. On or about October 25, LexisNexis Defendants or their 2010, I went to the Reed parents, subsidiaries, or Defendants website at affiliates provide some product https://personalreports.lexisnexis. which may be subject to the com/, see a true and correct copy FCRA is irrelevant unless the of this web Page attached as products at issue in this action EXHIBIT 6, to learn how to are such products. The obtain my consumer report from declarant provides no facts to them. As can be seen in suggest that they are, so EXHIBIT 6, the Reed testimony about the FCRA or Defendants state LexisNexis other non-FCRA actions by Risk Solutions is in compliance some entity are irrelevant. Fed. with FACT Act provides you R. Evid. 402. with one FREE report during each 12 month period. (Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which is part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act), with a link to obtain the information Additionally, the declarants statements concerning the pertaining to the FACT Act. If you look to the right hand side of contents of a website violate EXHIBIT 6, the Reed the best evidence rule and Defendants have links on how to constitute inadmissible hearsay. dispute incorrect information; Fed. R. Evid. 1002, 802. how to place a freeze on your Furthermore, the declarant does consumer report; and the not have a factual basis to consumers bill of rights, all of authenticate the referenced which is required by the Fair documents. Fed. R. Evid. 602, Credit Reporting Act.
69
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection 901. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Whether any one of the LexisNexis Defendants or their 22. I downloaded the parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates provide some product instructions to receive my full file disclosure and the form you which may be subject to the must fill out and send in from the FCRA is irrelevant unless the Reed Defendants website at products at issue in this action https://personalreports.lexisnexis. are such products. The com/pdfs/CD107_CP-Filedeclarant provides no facts to Disclosure-Request-Form_pgsuggest that they are, so 1.pdf; testimony about the FCRA or https://personalreports.lexisnexis. other non-FCRA actions by com/pdfs/CD107_CPsome entity are irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. File-Disclosure-RequestForm_pg-2.pdf; and https://personalreports.lexisnexis. com/pdfs/CD107_CP-FileDisclosure-Request-Form pg3.pdf, see true and correct copies Additionally, the declarants of these documents attached as EXHIBIT 7. As can be seen statements concerning the from EXHIBIT 7 LexisNexis contents of the document, Risk Solutions refers to the full attached as Exhibit 7, and the file disclosures as consumer referenced website are reports. objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced materials and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 10, Lines 5-13
23. On October 26, 2010, I sent in the required forms to the Reed Defendants along with a utility bill and my drivers license to obtain the full package of reports, including Accurint. I sent the request twice, one under my old Social Security number and one under my new. My husband also sent the same forms with a utility bill and his drivers license to obtain all of his reports. Neither of us ever received our full disclosure consumer reports from any of the The declarants assertion that Reed Defendants. the LexisNexis Defendants issue consumer reports is argumentative and an improper use of a declaration. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Declarants alleged communication and correspondence with the Reed Defendants after the events alleged in the First Amended Complaint are not relevant to the issue whether an Accurint report is a consumer report within the meaning of the FCRA.
Page 10, Line 15 Page 11, Line 7 24. What I did receive
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Declarants alleged communication and correspondence with the Reed
71
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration however, was a letter from Accurint/LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. dated November 29, 2010 stating I did not have an Accurint file with them, see a true and correct redacted copy of this letter attached as EXHIBIT 8; and a secondary letter with the same date from LexisNexis with documents that contained very limited information, not my full report, that LexisNexis identified as my consumer report, see a true and correct redacted copy attached as EXHIBIT 9 along with my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, see a true and correct copy attached as EXHIBIT 10, reconfirming that the reports sold by the Reed Defendants are governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is contrary to the Reed Defendants false assertions in their MSJ. Both letters received were sent from the same place in Georgia. As can be seen from EXHIBIT 9, this consumer report contains the same information as the Accurint Reports sold to Neil Sankey, IRBsearch, LLC and the Sankey Firm, Inc. attached hereto as EXHBITS 1, 2, and 3, with the exception of the relative, friends and associates information.
Grounds for Objection Defendants after the events alleged in the First Amended Complaint are not relevant to the issue whether an Accurint report is a consumer report within the meaning of the FCRA.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Additionally, whether any one of the LexisNexis Defendants or their parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates provide some product which may be subject to the FCRA is irrelevant unless the products at issue in this action are such products. The declarant provides no facts to suggest that they are, so testimony about the FCRA or other non-FCRA actions by some entity are irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
The declarants statements concerning the contents of the documents, attached as Exhibits 8, 9, 10, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
72
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. What type of report the 25. The Reed Defendants declarant ran on herself is not state in their responses for relevant to any material issues Accurint to our Interrogatories raised by the LexisNexis that I ran Accurint searches on Defendants Motion for myself and Plaintiff Lisa Ostella. Summary Judgment. A true and correct copy of Accurints Responses to our Interrogatories is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 11 at pp. 167171, paragraph 4. This is untrue. I have never had accounts Additionally, the declarants with or access to Accurint statements concerning the contents of the referenced products. I did have an account with LexisNexis that allowed, documents are objectionable to and I conducted, searches in their the extent that those statements peoplefinder database on are inconsistent with the myself, husband, Lisa Ostella documents and violate the best and her husband with their evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. permission. True and correct 1002. copies of the reports I conducted were previously filed in this case, see DN 66, at Pages 32-37 and DN 391-4 at Pages 16, 29, 31-32, which are true and correct copies. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on
Page 11, Lines 8-20
73
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 11, Line 22 Page 12, Line 22 26. The Reed Defendants attempt to get crafty with their wording. They state in their MSJ at p. 3, 3rd paragraph, that their Accurint reports do not contain mothers maiden names or places of birth. This too is inaccurate. The Reed Defendants admit in their MSJ that there are different levels of Accurint reports, which explains why Neil Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc. had to run five (5) reports on my husband and I on March 16, 2009; April 6, 2009; April 15, 2009; April 19, 2009; and May 7, 2009, they would not continue paying the expenses for the same report, in such a short period of time. You can purchase Accurint reports with birth and death records, as advertised on their website at www.accurint.com and is how Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm, Inc. who furnished the information to Orly Taitz, obtained my sisters death which was posted by Orly Taitz on June 27, 2009. Orly Taitzs post, I am back from PA. Very Important, a true and correct copy of which I obtained from Orly Taitzs website at http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blo g1/?p=2585 and http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p= 2585 is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 12. In this post, Taitz states that my sister died in Santa Fe, died of a drug overdose, and the Santa Fe police
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarants attempt to dispute claims made by the LexisNexis Defendants in their Motion for Summary Judgment is argumentative and is an improper use of a declaration.
Additionally, the declarants attempt to relate what might be stated in other documents or on websites violates the best evidence rule and is objectionable to the extent that it is inconsistent with those materials. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
74
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration department handled the investigation. Taitz also published my place of birth, and my mothers maiden name, a true and correct copy of which I obtained from Orly Taitz website at http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blo g1/?p=2522 and http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p= 5822 is attached as EXHIBIT 13. Page 11, Line 23 Page 13, Line 2
Grounds for Objection Finally, the declarant lacks any foundation to testify as to the LexisNexis Defendants advertising. The declarant also does not attempt to connect the advertising to any issue relevant to this case.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 27. Orly Taitz in her post attached as EXHIBIT 12 also 12, are objectionable to the states I planned a hit on my extent that those statements are sister, a contract, and other inconsistent with the referenced statements completely untrue and document and violate the best then attaches a couple of Pages evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. from a supposed transcript, to 1002. imply and substantiate Taitzs false statements that I had something to do with my sisters death.
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Page 13, Lines 4-8 28. The Reed Defendants also raise the issue of Intelius and their Motion for Summary Judgment in their MSJ at the bottom of p. 1 and top of p. 2. These statements are nothing more than a reiteration of assertions made by Plaintiffs in their opposition papers. They are thus improper and irrelevant as a factual matter.
75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration The circumstances are far different with the Reed Defendants than they were with Intelius, there is no comparison.
Grounds for Objection Fed. R. Evid. 402.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants attempt to dispute claims made by the 29. The Reed Defendants LexisNexis Defendants is claim in their MSJ at p. 2, argumentative and is an paragraph A that their Accurint improper use of a declaration. Reports are primarily used for locating persons, verifying identity, and detecting fraud. This is not completely accurate. The Reed Defendants, Accurint, markets the Accurint Reports to Furthermore, The declarants Insurance companies and debt statements concerning the collection companies to assist in contents of the referenced disability and other claims, documents are objectionable to collection of debts, fees, etc. I the extent that those statements went directly to Accurints are inconsistent with the website at documents and violate the best http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/s evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. The declarant also does olutions/contact-locate/skiptracing-accurintcollections.aspx, not have a factual basis to took a screen shot (picture) and authenticate the referenced downloaded their brochure documents. Fed. R. Evid. 602, targeting debt collection 901. companies, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 14. I also went directly to Accurints website that focus on Insurance at http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/d Argumentative. Burch v. ownloads/literature/accurint-insu Regents of the Univ. of Cal., rance.pdf and I downloaded their 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 pamphlet targeting Insurance (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements
76
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration Company, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 15. Reports intended for use by Insurance companies and Debt Collection companies are consumer reports governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 a(d)(1)(A).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 14, Lines 4-11 30. Orly Taitz filed a false law enforcement report against me on April 17, 2009 with the Orange County Sheriffs Department, a true and correct copy of the report obtained by subpoena is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 16", claiming I was the same person as Lisa Ostella and I had stolen approx. $10,000.00, which was completely untrue and falsified, from her and as a result thereto, she had Neil Sankey conduct background reports on me. Page 14, Lines 12-19 31. Neil Sankey went on the Plains Radio show with Edgar Hale on May 28, 2009 and told all the listeners that I owed a lot of people money in San Bernardino County and that was sufficient for him to run reports
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 16, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Furthermore, the declarant does not have a factual basis to authenticate the referenced documents. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 901.
The declarants statement in this portion of the declaration is not based on any personal knowledge and is inadmissible evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Additionally, even if the testimony accurately reflects Sankeys statements on the Plains Radio show, they are
77
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration on me. This radio show transcript has been filed with this Court numerous times, and a copy of the entire radio show was provided to Judge Robreno in Pennsylvania, in this case on August 9, 2009 during a restraining order hearing. Sankey also discussed a loan I had taken out. Page 14, Line 20 Page 15, Line 2
Grounds for Objection irrelevant and do not bear on the issue whether an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA.
GRANTED/ DENIED
32. The Reed Defendants stated in their responses to our Interrogatories at number 4, that the Sankey Firm, Inc.s purpose under the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act [GLBA], which Accurint is governed by, was For use by persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer and For use by persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer.. See EXHIBIT 11, paragraph 4 at p. 169, for Mr. Sankeys purpose under the GLBA. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 11, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Page 15, Lines 4-13 33. The Sankey Defendants used GLBA purpose claiming he was collecting money from me, which is a report, governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I have never given any of the Sankey Defendants permission or authorization to obtain any of my financial or consumer Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Whether or not the Sankey Defendants identified certain uses for the purpose of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act in their agreement with IRB is not relevant to whether the Accurint reports he allegedly ran on the Plaintiffs constitute consumer reports within the FCRA. Plaintiffs have not
78
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Whether or not the Sankey Defendants identified certain uses for the purpose of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act in their agreement with IRB is not relevant to whether the Accurint reports he allegedly ran on the Plaintiffs constitute consumer reports within the FCRA. Plaintiffs have not asserted any claims under the GLBA.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration reports, I did not and do not owe Orly Taitz or any of the Sankey Defendants any money. I did not have knowledge at the time the Sankey Defendants obtained my financial and consumer reports, I did not know who any of the Sankey Defendants were prior to April 17, 2009, when Taitz sent out Dossier No. 6, nor had I ever heard of them.
Grounds for Objection asserted any claims under the GLBA.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarants assertion that an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA is argumentative and an improper use of a declaration. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
79
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration Page 15, Lines 15-21 34. The GLBA requires all financial institutions to notify its customers when information is sought on them, giving their customer the opportunity to optout of the disclosure, except under a few exceptions, see 15 U.S.C. 6802(a) and 6802(b). One of the exceptions is disclosure to a Credit Reporting Agency, see 15 U.S.C. 6802(e)(6)(A).
Grounds for Objection Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Plaintiffs have not asserted any claims under the GLBA.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Additionally, the declarant lacks any personal knowledge to testify regarding the requirements and application of federal law. Fed. R. Evid. 602. This attempt to argue about what the law requires is impermissible legal argument. Fed. R. Evid. 701. Page 15, Line 22 Page 16, Line 2 35. The Reed Defendants admit to obtaining records from financial institutions and the National Credit Reporting Agencies. This is interesting because neither I nor my husband have ever been notified by any of our financial institutions that any of the Reed Defendants were seeking our information. The only exception listed in the Gramm Leach Bliley Act that any of the Reed Defendants would qualify for is if they were credit reporting agencies. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Plaintiffs have not asserted any claims under the GLBA.
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
GRANTED/ DENIED
Additionally, the declarant lacks any personal knowledge to testify regarding the requirements and application of federal law. Fed. R. Evid. 602. This attempt to argue about what the law requires is impermissible legal argument. Fed. R. Evid. 701. Page 16, Lines 4-11 36. Likewise, I and my husband are opted out with the three (3) National Credit Reporting Agencies from selling our credit header data; and for all promotional purposes. Again, the only way any of the Reed Defendants could have obtained the credit header data from my credit reports or my credit reports, as they stated they obtain in their MSJ, from the National Credit Reporting Agencies is if they were another credit reporting agency. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarants attempt to dispute claims made by the LexisNexis Defendants is argumentative and is an improper use of a declaration.
Page 16, Lines 12-18 37. The Reed Defendants also admitted in their MSJ that Neil Sankey used the Sankey Firm, Inc.s log-in credentials to access and obtain the Accurint Reports purchased on me, my husband, Lisa Ostella and her husband as we plead in our Motion for Summary Judgment, pending before this Court, against Todd Sankey and the
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarants attempt to dispute claims made by the LexisNexis Defendants
81
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration Sankey Firm, Inc.
Grounds for Objection is argumentative and is an improper use of a declaration. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the documents, attached as Exhibits 1 and 2, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 16, Line 19 Page 18, Line 18 38. As for the report that Accurint sold to IRBsearch, LLC, Neil Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc. attached as EXHIBITS 1and 2, there are numerous names listed as AKAs with my date of birth and Social Security number that have never been my name or used by me as my name, these include but are not limited to: Lisa A. Liberi; Lisa R. Courville-Richardson; Lisa R. Courvillerichar; Lisa Reynolds; Lisa O. Courville; Lisa O. Courville Richardson; Lisa Courviller; Lisa Richardson Courville; L Richardson Courville; L Courville Richardso; L.R. Reynolds; Lisa Courricharcourri; Lisa R. Courvillerichar; Lisa R. CourvilleRichard; Lisa R. Courvillerichards; Lisa R. Courvillerichardso; Lisa R. Libert;
Furthermore, the declarant does not have a factual basis to authenticate the referenced documents. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 901.
Whether or not the search results included names or other personal information not belonging to the declarant is irrelevant. It would be improper to draw any inference of wrongdoing on LexisNexis Defendants part from that fact, even if true, because declarant does not have personal knowledge about how information is gathered and generated in response to a search in an Accurint database.
82
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration L. Liberia; Lisa R. Liveri; Lisa R. Marshall; Lisa Rich; Lisa C. Richardson; Lisa R. Morris; Nicki Odem; Eloisa Morales; Lisa Renee Liberi; Lisa C. Richardson; Eloisa Becerra Morales; Nicki Odem; and Lisa Corvillericher. Page 17, Line 20 Page 18, Line 5 39. The Reed Defendants through Accurint are also reporting bankruptcies and judgments back from 1993, including but not limited to: Chapter 13 BK filed 11/30/2000 Case No. 0027288 Chapter 7 BK filed 12/12/2001 Case No. 0112042 Chapter 7 BK filed 06/02/1993 Case No. 9318163 Forcible Entry filed 05/17/2001 Case No. 134193 Small Claims Judgment filed 4/18/2001 Case No. 29409
GRANTED/ DENIED
83
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration Civil Judgment filed 9/01/2000 Case No. RCCI47798 Amt. $7,348 Civil Judgment filed 9/01/2000 Case No. RCCI47798 Amt. $8,430 Small Claims Judgment filed 5/08/2000 Case No. 00S00403 Civil Judgment filed 4/19/2000 Case No. RCCI45728 Small Claims Judgment filed 9/01/1998 Case No. 17298 Small Claims Judgment filed 3/07/1994 Case No. 120009 Small Claims Judgment filed 8/10/1993 Case No. 116860 All of which are in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 c(a)(1); 1681 c(a)(2); and Sections 312 and 313 of the FACT Act Page 18, Lines 6-23 40. The Reed Defendants through Accurint are also reporting me convicted in incorrect criminal case information by my name, date of birth and Social Security number, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 c(a)(2), these include but are not limited to: San Bernardino County Case No. FSB044914 File Date: 06/30/2004 The above incorrect case
GRANTED/ DENIED
84
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration information is listed repeatedly on the comprehensive background Report. I was not convicted in that case, that case was dismissed as it was a duplicate case. And, San Bernardino County Ticket Number 030202LL File Date: 03/21/2002 The above was a ticket I received, not a criminal case. Page 18, Line 24 Page 20, Line 16 41. The Reed Defendants through Accurint also have many incorrect addresses affixed with my name, Social Security number (old and new Social Security number) and date of birth, these include but are not limited to: 9999 Willow Creek Rd, San Diego, CA 92131-1117 (Oct. 2006); 6022 Mira Vista Ln, Fontana, CA 92336-5806 (Dec. 2005); 920 S. Village Oaks Dr., Covina, CA 91724-3605 (Jul 2002 Feb. 2003); 11338 Kenyan B 119 WA, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 (Sept. 1999 Dec. 2001); 26371 Paloma Apt 156, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 (Nov 1991 Jan 1999); 1129 Headingly Ave. NW, Albuquerque, NM 87107
GRANTED/ DENIED
85
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration (Aug. 1991 Jan. 1999); 7200 Pazallo Pl, Alta Loma, CA 91701; 7150 Smiling Wood Ln Apt 705, Houston, TX 770863140; 7100 Smiling Wood LN Apt 507, Houston, Texas 770863140; 12777 Ahsford, Houston, Texas (Dec. 1990); 7100 Smiling Wood Ln Apt 706, Houston, Texas 770863150; 11338 Kenyon Way Ste A, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701-9236 (Jan. 2004 - Dec 2006); 11338 Kenyon Way Ste B-119, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701-9236 (Oct 2001 Dec 2006); Pozallo Pl 7020, Alta Loma, CA 91701; 11338 Kenyon Way Ste B, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701-9236 (Nov. 2001 Jan. 2002); 40 Bonito Court, Santa Fe, NM 87508-8311 (08/200601/2007); 1704 Llano St Ste B, Santa Fe, NM 87505-5415 (12/200312/2006); 7349 Milliken Ave., Bldg. 1 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-7435 (Sept. 2001 March 2002); 1704 B LLA NO ST 159, Santa
GRANTED/ DENIED
86
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration Fe, NM 87505 (7/200611/2006); 1704 Llano St Apt 159, Santa Fe, NM 87505-5415 (11/2004 10/2006); and 159 1704B Llano St, Santa Fe, NM 87505 (01/2005 05/2005). Page 20, Lines 17-23 42. The Reed Defendants have all been put on notice and notified of all the incorrect information in my file on October 26, 2010; February 28, 2010 when Mr. Berg wrote to them; and again in my responses to the Reed Defendants Interrogatories. To date, I have not received any correct reports or communications in regards to my dispute.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants alleged correspondence with the Reed Defendants after the events alleged in the First Amended Complaint is irrelevant to the issue whether an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered
87
Page 20, Line 24 Page 21, Line 12 43. These additional and incorrect names, addresses, expired bankruptcy and judgments, and incorrect criminal information affixed to me by Accurint and the Reed Defendants, with my Social Security number and date of birth will stay with me forever. Accurint as well as the other Reed Defendants have resellers who sell their information and now have all this incorrect
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Grounds for Objection Declaration information associated with me on a motion for summary in their databases, as well as judgment.). other Data Brokers who purchase from Accurint and the other Reed Defendants and in turn resell the information to other third parties. I will never be able to correct this incorrect information. Not to mention the fact it was posted all over the Internet, sent by mass emailing, discussed on radio shows, sent through RSS feeds, sent to Millions of individuals and businesses including internationally, posted on Social network sites, e.g. Facebook, Beforeitsnews, etc., tweeted, etc. by Neil Sankey and Orly Taitz. Page 21, Lines 13-25 44. As a result of the disclosure of mine and my husbands private data, both my husband and I have suffered full identity theft, which cannot be fixed. Many accounts were opened in our name with Mervyns, Target, Chase Bank, a timeshare was financed in our names, a mortgage was taken out in our name, a car was purchased from Bank of American in our name, and repossessed, and other credit accounts, all without our knowledge, permission and/or consent. It cant be fixed because our private data was shared with millions of people and businesses including internationally by the Sankey Defendants and Orly Taitz. Each time we spend attempting to clear up one account, three more are opened. Page 21, Line 26 Page 22, Line 5 45. Even if my husband and I were provided new Social Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on
88
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Liberi Declaration Security numbers, these millions of individuals and businesses, including internationally have my mothers maiden name, place of birth, date of birth, name, address, and other private data that the Social Security Administration asks to be verified before providing any information, and can call the Social Security Administration and obtain our new numbers. Page 22, Lines 6-19 46. My husband and I, as filed with this Court numerous times and explained above, have also suffered other severe damages, including but not limited to medical expenses, medical complications, harassment, moving expenses, stalking, my husband had to take time of work, our utility services were scheduled shut-off by a person using my identity, death threats, non-stop phone calls, people showing up at our house, looking in our windows, false law enforcement reports (State and Federal), false reports to probation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, severe emotional distress, paramedic expenses and procedures, medical procedures and expenses, hospitalizations, being shunned by neighbors, full identity theft, our credit was destroyed, etc. many of which are also permanent.
GRANTED/ DENIED
89
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF BRENT LIBERI Objections to B. Liberi Declaration Page 1, Line 25- Page 2, Line 2. Grounds for Objection GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 1. Lisa Liberi, Plaintiff in Brent Liberi is not a party to this action, is my wife. We have this action. Therefore, the LexisNexis Defendants object been married over twelve (12) years. My wife Interns with to each and every paragraph of Philip J. Berg, Esquire, Attorney his declaration to the extent that in Pennsylvania, and counsel for it is not based on personal the Plaintiffs herein, as Mr. knowledge, lacks foundation, Bergs Paralegal/Legal Assistant. and is based on inadmissible My wife has interned with Mr. hearsay. Berg since she began school for her Paralegal certification. Page 2, Lines 4-8 2. Prior to April 17, 2009, I had never heard of Orly Taitz, Law Offices of Orly Taitz, Defend our Freedoms, Inc., Orly Taitz, Inc., Neil Sankey, Todd Sankey, the Sankey Firm, Inc. or the Sankey Firm, Inc. I have never spoken with or met any of these Defendants. Page 2, Lines 9-15 3. In or about March/April 2009, Orly Taitz threatened my wife. Orly Taitz published that she was going to take down Mr. Berg and to do so she was going to destroy my wife and get rid of her. Ms. Taitz then proceeded with her threats and obtained the services of Neil Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc. to assist her in her endeavors to harm my wife and family. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Brent Liberi is not a party to this action. Therefore, his testimony about his interaction with Orly Taitz is irrelevant to LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment.
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to B. Liberi Declaration Page 2, Lines 16-18
Grounds for Objection Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
GRANTED/ DENIED
4. My wife has never worked Lacks foundation. Fed. R. for or had anything to do with Evid. 602. any of the Taitzs or Sankey Defendants. Page 2, Lines 19 Page 3, Line 8 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 5. Ms. Taitz, without any type of legal or permissible purpose and without mine or my wifes authorization, had Mr. Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc. run consumer reports on me and my wife and obtain our private identifying information. Ms. Taitz, during this same time, was publishing false statements about me and my wife, claiming I was diverting funds from her and Mr. Berg; that I had visa links on Mr. Bergs website; that donations being made to Mr. Berg were being diverted to my PayPal account; that I was on parole; that I had changed my name from McCormack to Liberi; and many other false statements. Ms. Taitz was publishing that my wife had stolen from her; my wife was a career document forger; that my wife placed a contract and a hit on her own sister to have her killed; Ms. Taitz inferred my wife killed her own sister; that my wife forged documents filed in Mr. Bergs cases; that Lisa Ostella and my wife were the same person; and many other false stories. Page 3, Lines 9-22 6. The evening of April 17, 2009, when I returned home from work, I reviewed Ms. Taitzs Dossier #6, that she put out with a bunch of false Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarants statement in this portion of the declaration is not based on any personal or other knowledge, and is so inaccurate and speculative that it is in fact inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403. Inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the referenced documents are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the
91
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to B. Liberi Grounds for Objection Declaration statements about my wife. In Ms. documents and violate the best Taitz Dossier #6 was an E-mail evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. from Neil Sankey of the Sankey 1002. Firm, Inc. to a Bob Unruh dated April 10, 2009. Mr. Sankeys EMail contained my wifes name, date of birth, her old Social Security number and her full new Social Security number along with friends of ours their dates of birth and Social Security numbers and my information including my name, and Social Security number. Mr. Sankey and the Sankey Firms E-Mail also contained my sister and brother-in-laws name Heller. My wife was extremely upset regarding Taitzs publications which were all over the Internet. Page 3, Line 23 Page 4, Line 2 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants attempt to 7. A simple Google search of relate what might be stated in other documents or on websites my name that I conducted returned numerous false stories violates the best evidence rule and allegations about me and my and is inadmissible hearsay. wife as well as all our private Fed. R. Evid, 1002, 802. and personal identifying information showing published by Ms. Taitz on her websites at www.repubx.com; www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1; and www.orlytaitzesq.com along with multiple websites that Ms. Taitz published this information. Page 4, Lines 4-8 8. Ms. Taitz was seeking everyone in the Internet world to contact my wifes probation and file false reports about my wife; and to contact law enforcement and report my wife for false crimes and allegations to have my wife arrested. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants attempt to relate what might be stated in other documents or on websites violates the best evidence rule and is inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid, 1002, 802. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,
GRANTED/ DENIED
92
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to B. Liberi Declaration
Grounds for Objection 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants attempt to relate what might be stated in other documents or on websites violates the best evidence rule and is inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid, 1002, 802. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 4, Lines 9-15 9. My wife suffers from severe medical problems. My wife underwent open heart surgery after her first heart attack. After this surgery, my wife was unable to take beta blocker medication to protect her heart, as she was allergic to it and suffered two additional heart attacks after her surgery. My wife is also a type I diabetic.
Page 4, Line 16 Page 5, Line 14 10. After Ms. Taitz published our private personal identifying information and filed false reports against my wife, law enforcement was contacting us, probation was contacting us, and Ms. Taitz had heightened her attacks on my wife calling for the Internet world to show up here in Santa Fe, NM, Ms. Taitz began publishing a family portrait of us, our home address and telephone number, Ms. Taitz accused my wife of tampering with her car and Ms. Taitz began her attacks on the probation offices and law enforcement because they did not
93
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to B. Liberi Grounds for Objection Declaration find merit in her false reports and likewise will not be considered would not arrest my wife, my on a motion for summary wife began experiencing severe judgment.). medical complications as a result of the stress induced by Ms. Taitz, her supporters at her request and the Sankey Defendants. I had to call the paramedics on my wife numerous times because she had gone unconscious, was suffering cardiac complications, etc. At the end of October 2010, as Ms. Taitz and the Sankeys continued their harassment, threats and attacks against my wife and family, my wife went into tachycardia, and was hospitalized for approximately a week as a result thereof. My wifes cardiologist told me and my wife numerous times, her cardiac complications and other medical complications were a result of the stress my wife was forced to endure. The complications to my wifes health caused by Ms. Taitz and the Sankeys have cost our family thousands of dollars and my wife has had to go through extensive testing and cardiac procedures. Page 5, Lines 15-19 11. Because of Orly Taitzs requests of her supporters, a strange man appeared at our home, it was before 8:00 a.m. This man was looking in all our windows and snooping around our home. I took off work this day out of fear this man would come back and harm my family. Page 5, Line 2 Page 6, Line 8 12. After the publication of mine and my wifes personal identifying information by Ms. Taitz and the Sankeys, the gas Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
GRANTED/ DENIED
94
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to B. Liberi Declaration company appeared at our home to turn off our gas during a heavy winter storm. The gas company told us that someone called in claiming to be my wife, and verified my wifes personal identifying information and scheduled the gas to be turned off. Credit accounts have been opened fraudulently in both mine and my wifes name, we have received death threats because my wife is suing these individuals, my wifes name has been forged and input on documents by the Sankeys and Ms. Taitz, our credit has been destroyed, we have suffered full identity theft, false reports were filed against my wife, our family has been continuously harassed, and we have suffered many more severe damages as a result of Ms. Taitz and the Sankeys actions against us. Page 6, Lines 9-12 13. On October 26, 2010, I sent in the request for my full report disclosure and Accurint forms; my drivers license; and a utility bill to the Reed Defendants. To date, I have not received any of my reports.
Grounds for Objection Inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Brent Liberi is not a party to this action. Additionally, his alleged correspondence with the Reed Defendants after the events alleged in the First Amended Complaint is irrelevant to the issue whether an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA. LexisNexis Defendants further object to the extent that Plaintiffs' statements concerning the contents of correspondence he sent are inconsistent with the correspondence and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
95
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to B. Liberi Declaration Page 6, Lines 13-21
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements 14. In or about January concerning the contents of the 2012, my wife received copies of referenced documents are documents provided by the objectionable to the extent that Sankeys from her attorney those statements are Philip J. Berg, Esquire. I read inconsistent with the through all these documents, documents and violate the best which included consumer reports evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. on me and my wife, Accurint 1002. Furthermore, the searches on my wife, E-mail declarant does not have a searches on my wife, and Ms. factual basis to authenticate the Taitz and the Sankeys referenced documents. Fed. R. Emergency Petition to revoke my Evid. 602, 901. wifes probation that was filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Page 6, Lines 22-28 15. I could not believe that Mr. Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc. had obtained a consumer report from Accurint on me and my wife that contained all our personal identifying information without any type of knowledge or permission from us. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT A is a true and correct copy of the consumer report Neil Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc. obtained on me. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit A to the Sankey Declaration, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Furthermore, the declarant does not have a factual basis to authenticate the referenced documents. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 901. The declarants assertion that an Accurint report is a consumer report within the
96
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection FCRA is argumentative and an improper use of a declaration. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 7, Lines 1-8 16. I also read through the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment; the Reed Defendants Brief in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment; and the Declarations of Neil Sankey, Lisa Simmons, and Lisa Policastro. I have never authorized or had prior knowledge that the Reed Defendants were selling my consumer reports and private information to IRBsearch, LLC and other investigative, surveillance, data broker agencies, etc. Page 7, Lines 9-19
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants attempt to dispute claims made by the LexisNexis Defendants is argumentative and is an improper use of a declaration. Additionally, the declarants assertion that an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA is argumentative and an improper use of a declaration. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 17. These third parties do not 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 have any type of permissible or (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements legal purpose or entitlement to in declarations based on obtain mine and my wifes speculation or improper legal consumer reports and private conclusions, or argumentative information. I find it hard to statements, are not facts and believe with our laws protecting likewise will not be considered our private information that on a motion for summary obtaining consumer reports for judgment.). The declarants the purpose of reselling the data assertion that an Accurint constitutes a permissible or legal report is a consumer report purpose or any type of legal within the FCRA is entitlement under the Grammargumentative and an improper Leach Bliley Act; the Fair Credit use of a declaration. Fed. R. Reporting Act; the Drivers Evid. 402. Privacy Protection Act; or any of the State equivalents that prevent the disclosure of our consumer reports and private information as it would defy these laws of protection. Page 7, Lines 20-26 18. The Reed Defendants Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Whether or not Neil Sankey identified certain uses for the
97
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to B. Liberi Declaration contend in their Motion and as shown on my consumer report attached as EXHIBIT A, the Sankeys used for their permissible purpose For use by persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer and For use by persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer.
Grounds for Objection purpose of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act in his agreement with IRB is not relevant to whether an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit A, violate the best evidence rule and constitute inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 1002, 802. The declarants assertion that an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA is argumentative and an improper use of a declaration. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Additionally, the declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit A to the Sankey Declaration, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 8, Lines 1-9 19. I have never authorized any of the Defendants in this case, including the Sankeys, to act on my behalf, as my representative, or obtain anything on my behalf. None of the Defendants in this case have any type of legal or beneficial interest in me. I do not owe any of them any money, I have not applied for accounts or credit with them, I do not and have not applied for employment with any
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
98
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to B. Liberi Declaration of them, I have never contacted any of them to do any work for me or on my behalf, nothing. Page 8, Lines 11-15 20. In the consumer report obtained on me by the Sankeys attached as EXHIBIT A it contains our unpublished and unlisted phone numbers, information from the National Credit Reporting Agencies, Experian, TransUnion and Equifax, and information obtained from my financial institutions.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit A, violate the best evidence rule and constitute inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 1002, 802. The declarants assertion that an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA is argumentative and an improper use of a declaration. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Additionally, the declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit A to the Sankey Declaration, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
Page 8, Lines 26-25 21. I have never received any communications or opt-out notices from any of my financial institutions regarding any request for my private information by any of the Defendants in this case, including the Reed Defendants. I have not authorized the release of our unpublished, unlisted phone numbers. And, I have been and am opted out with all three of the National Credit Reporting Agencies preventing them from selling the header information
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
99
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to B. Liberi Declaration from my credit reports, for promotional purposes and for any type of release for any other reason. Page 8, Line 26 Page 9, Line 4 22. Our home address in Santa Fe, New Mexico is not owned by us and is not public information. Neither I nor my wife has ever authorized the disclosure of any of our private information from the National Credit Reporting Agencies; our financial institutions; any of our utility accounts; our telephone companies; or any other agency to any of the Reed Defendants or anyone else. Page 9, Lines 5-14 23. I am unsure as to who all the Reed Defendants have sold our consumer reports and private information to. The Reed Defendants have failed to furnish me my reports. With all that Ms. Taitz and the Sankeys have done to me and my family, the death threats we have received, strange people appearing at our home, etc., it is imperative that I receive each and every person or company the Reed Defendants sold reports on us to, so I can take the proper protective measures to ensure the safety of my family and me.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarants assertions regarding whether any one of the LexisNexis Defendants is a credit reporting agency or issued a consumer report are an improper use of a declaration. Moreover, whether any one of the LexisNexis Defendants or their parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates provide some product which may be subject to the FCRA is irrelevant unless the products at issue in this action
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection are such products. The declarant provides no facts to suggest that they are, so testimony about the FCRA or other non-FCRA actions by some entity are irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
GRANTED/ DENIED
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF LISA OSTELLA Objections to Ostella Declaration Page 2, Lines 1-14 1. While reading the partial disclosures and interrogatories provided by the Reed Defendants, I found the need to respond to their comment that they found our "Amended Complaint inappropriate", see a true and correct copy of Accurints Responses to our Interrogatories is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1 at page 8, interrogatory No. 2, line 17. My family and I have been stalked, cyberstalked, threatened, had more than one private investigation firm hired to surveil us, been harassed, libeled, slandered and had all of our personal identifying information posted on the internet, disseminated through the mail and discussed on radio shows. The Reed Defendants finding my need to protect my family as inappropriate really requires a willing suspension of disbelief. Grounds for Objection Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarants attempt to dispute claims made by the LexisNexis Defendants is argumentative and is an improper use of a declaration. Additionally, the declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 1, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. GRANTED/ DENIED
101
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Ostella Declaration
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 2, Lines 15-25
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Declarants alleged 2. The Reed Defendants were communication with the Reed put on notice by us that our data, Defendants about the alleged obtained from their companies, distribution of her personal was being distributed all over the information by another party is Internet, snail mail, radio shows, not relevant to the issue hand delivered, filed in unrelated whether an Accurint report is a court cases and numerous false consumer report within the law enforcement reports on meaning of the FCRA. February 28, 2010. Since that time, more letters, data requests, and phone conferences have been Argumentative. Burch v. held with the Reed Defendants. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., All of these letters and 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 conferences were for the full (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements disclosure of who performed in declarations based on searches and purchased reports speculation or improper legal on us, as explained in our First conclusions, or argumentative Amended Complaint, Docket Number [DN] 231, pp. 66, 70- statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered 72, paragraphs 159, 166-169. on a motion for summary judgment.). Furthermore, the declarants statements concerning the contents of the referenced documents are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Page 3, Line 1 Page 5, Line 16 3. Using the Reed Defendant's own posted policies, as well as directions they gave to us during the telephone conferences, we submitted our driver licenses and bank records to them to receive our reports. Per the Reed Defendants' instructions, we filled out their Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Declarants alleged communication and correspondence with the Reed Defendants after the events alleged in the First Amended Complaint are not relevant to the issue whether an Accurint report is a consumer report within the meaning of the
102
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Ostella Declaration opt-out forms on October 27, 2010, a true and correct copy of my Report Request form is attached as EXHIBIT 2. We received what they claim was left of our reports after the Reed Defendants opted us out of their systems rather than the search and report data we requested on February 28, 2010, that was sold to Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm, Inc., IRBsearch, LLC and other third parties. The partial disclosures all came with FCRA compliance disclaimers as well as NJ State Law disclosure compliance disclaimers and is as follows: (a) November 22, 2010 letter from Accurint stating as of November 22, 2010, Accurint has no records on me in their database, a true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 3. (b) November 17, 2010 Letter and Risk Review Report. disclosure report from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC. This report contains my name, address, date of birth, phone numbers (which were NOT public) and social security number, etc. This report does not contain a listing of entities, persons or companies that accessed it in the last 12 months as the letter claims. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 4. (c) November 17, 2010 letter and C.L.U.E. report from ChoicePoint, Inc. (LexisNexis Risk
Grounds for Objection FCRA. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the documents, attached as Exhibits 2 through 11, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarants statement in this portion of the declaration is not based on any personal or other knowledge, and is so inaccurate and speculative that it is in fact inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
GRANTED/ DENIED
103
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Ostella Declaration Solutions Consumer Center) and my rights under the FCRA and my state, New Jersey are attached hereto as EXHIBIT 5. The C.L.U.E. Consumer report sent to me is missing numerous pages. The page numbers jump from page 3 to page 32 to page 55 as shown on the attached EXHIBIT 5. I have never received the missing pages from ChoicePoint, Inc. (d) The Fair Credit Reporting Notice sent with my consumer reports from ChoicePoint, Inc. and with my LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau, LLC Risk Review Consumer Report is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 6 and the New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Notices sent with my consumer reports from ChoicePoint, Inc. and with my LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau, LLC Risk Review Consumer Report is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 7. (e) November 17, 2010 Letter I received from LexisNexis stating I did not have an Employment Report with them is attached as EXHIBIT 8. (f) November 17, 2010 letter I received from LexisNexis stating I did not have an Esteem Report on file is attached as EXHIBIT 9. (g) November 17, 2010 letter
GRANTED/ DENIED
104
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Ostella Declaration I received from LexisNexis Screening Solutions, Inc. stating I do not have a Rental / Eviction Report on file is attached as EXHIBIT 10. (h) November 17, 2010 letter from LexisNexis stating I did not have a Banko Report on file is attached as EXHIBIT 11. Page 5, Lines 18-25
GRANTED/ DENIED
Speculative and argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of 4. In the partial Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, documentation I received from 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) the Reed Defendants, it was ([s]tatements in declarations disturbing to see they had our based on speculation or unlisted and unpublished improper legal conclusions, or telephone numbers in the reports. argumentative statements, are The only place they could have not facts and likewise will not obtained our unlisted and be considered on a motion for unpublished telephone records is summary judgment.). from the telephone company. My husband and I did not authorize the release of our Additionally, The declarants unlisted/unpublished telephone numbers, nor were we notified of statements concerning the contents of the referenced any such disclosure. documents are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Page 5, Line 26 Page 6, Line 5 5. After months of obfuscating their own policies as well as the Federal Trade Commissions [FTC] policies and Court Orders, we had to name them in this suit. It is only now that the Reed Defendants are partially revealing information on searches and reports run on my family by the Sankey Defendants as well as a These statements are nothing more than a reiteration of assertions made by Plaintiffs in their opposition papers. They are thus improper and irrelevant as a factual matter. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements
105
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Ostella Declaration private investigating and surveillance firm, IRBSearch, LLC on April 13, 2009, and April 19, 2009.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 6, Lines 6-15
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Whether or not the Sankey 6. The Application for the Defendants identified certain Sankey Firm, Inc.s account with uses for the purpose of the IRBsearch, LLC, reseller of Gramm-Leach Bliley Act in Accurint products, completed their agreement with IRB is not and signed by Todd Sankey on relevant to whether the behalf of The Sankey Firm, Accurint reports he allegedly attached to the Declaration of ran on the Plaintiffs constitute consumer reports within the Lisa Simmons as Exhibit A filed in support of the Reed FCRA. Defendants MSJ, shows that the Sankey Firm, Inc.s account, that Neil Sankey used, had full access The declarants statements to, and would be used for access concerning the contents of the to confidential data protected document, attached as Exhibit under the Gramm-Leach Bliley A to the Sankey Declaration, Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, are objectionable to the extent and the Drivers Privacy that those statements are Protection Act. inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. These statements are nothing more than a reiteration of assertions made by Plaintiffs in their opposition papers. They are thus improper and irrelevant as a factual matter. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Page 6, Lines 16-23 7. The partial reports received in disclosures show Sankey's stated the Gramm Leach Bliley Act [GLBA] Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Whether or not the Sankey Defendants identified certain uses for the purpose of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act in their agreement with IRB is not
106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Ostella Declaration permissible purpose was For use by persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer and For use by persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer. See EXHIBIT 1 attached hereto at page 8, interrogatory No. 2, line 17.
Grounds for Objection relevant to whether the Accurint reports he allegedly ran on the Plaintiffs constitute consumer reports within the FCRA. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit 1, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Whether or not the Sankey 8. A Fiduciary is a legal actor Defendants identified certain or beneficiary accounting on a uses for the purpose of the consumers behalf for financial Gramm-Leach Bliley Act in purposes and/or with permission their agreement with IRB is not from the consumer. As per the relevant to whether the GLB Act, a true and correct copy Accurint reports he allegedly of which is attached hereto as ran on the Plaintiffs constitute EXHIBIT 12, that is protected consumer reports within the under the Fair Credit Reporting FCRA. Act [FCRA], see EXHIBIT 12 at page 92, paragraph B. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit12, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative
107
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarant lacks any personal knowledge to testify regarding the requirements and application of federal law. Fed. R. Evid. 602. This attempt to argue about what the law requires is impermissible legal argument. Fed. R. Evid. 701.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Whether or not the Sankey 9. Sankey did not have any Defendants identified certain permission from me or my uses for the purpose of the husband to run reports, searches Gramm-Leach Bliley Act in or act on our behalf in any their agreement with IRB is not fashion. This stated purpose of relevant to whether the Fiduciary/Beneficiary, which is a Accurint reports he allegedly stated use under FCRA, was ran on the Plaintiffs constitute selected at the Reed Defendant's consumer reports within the login as admitted by the Reed FCRA. Defendant's in their Summary Judgment Motion [MSJ], Memorandum, page 5, lines 22- Argumentative. Burch v. 25: Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (UF No. 35.) This same language is also included on (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on the customer sign in page. speculation or improper legal See https://secure.accurint. conclusions, or argumentative com/app/bps/main. (UF No. statements, are not facts and 36.) For security purposes, likewise will not be considered Accurint customers can on a motion for summary access the Accurint product judgment.). The declarant only from this sign in lacks any personal knowledge page.(Id.) to testify regarding the requirements and application of federal law. Fed. R. Evid. 602. This attempt to argue about what the law requires is impermissible legal argument. Fed. R. Evid. 701. Page 7, Line 17 Page 8, Line 4 10. The Reed Defendant's MSJ, Memorandum, page 11, Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the LexisNexis Defendants
108
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Ostella Declaration lines 5-12, admit Neil Sankey was given account access through the Sankey Firm. It needs to be noted that at no time was Neil Sankey a licensed investigator with the Sankey Firm: LNRDMIs records of searches against the Accurint database indicate the subscriber or reseller by which the search was made. (UF No. 49.) Records of searches by resellers, such as IRB, indicate which of the resellers customers initiated the search by the reseller. (UF No. 51.) It is thus possible to determine from LNRDMIs records which searches and reports IRB sold to The Sankey Firm. (UF No. 52.) A user ID that was assigned to Neil Sankey was used to run the following searches with IRB: Page 8, Lines 6-16 11. From the Sankey Defendant's partial disclosures, we have some reports with the Accurint URL and user name nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com. Despite the fact that the Sankey Defendants applied for their account with IRBSearch,LLC, a private investigative and surveillance firm, to use the Reed Defendant's Accurint search products does not dismiss the fact that the Reed Defendants were aware of the fact that nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com was logging into their Accurint product directly with the stated purpose of obtaining searches and reports on myself and my family for a stated FCRA
Grounds for Objection Motion for Summary Judgment are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the brief and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarant lacks any basis or personal knowledge to opine as to the practical effect or meaning of the appearance of the Accurint url at the bottom of this document. In fact, it already has been accepted that IRB is an Accurint re-seller, so
109
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Ostella Declaration purpose. Page 8, Lies 17-24 12. The Reed Defendants are not providing full disclosures. The Reed Defendants in their MSJ and in their partial disclosures only address my social security number being disclosed by saying the searches or reports did not display the full social security number. However, the Reed Defendants do not provide the report or supply the searches. Their Accurint product has different search access levels that provide full view of all data.
Grounds for Objection declarants inadmissible opinion proves nothing. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). As evidenced by the unredacted versions of the Accurint reports, which Plaintiffs allege the Sankey Defendants ran on them, the reports did not disclose Plaintiffs full social security numbers. (Miller Decl. 29, Exs I-K.) The declarants statement in this portion of the declaration is not based on any personal or other knowledge, and is so inaccurate and speculative that it is in fact inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Declarants alleged 13. Multiple searches and communication and reports were purchased on me as correspondence with the Reed the Reed Defendants admit in Defendants after the events their interrogatories and MSJ. alleged in the First Amended Complaint are not relevant to The letter I received from the Reed Defendants in 2010 says the issue whether an Accurint there is no report on me because report is a consumer report I opted out. I was opted out after within the meaning of the I requested copies of the searches FCRA. and reports they had on me. The Reed Defendants nondisclosure of information is prejudicial to Argumentative. Burch v. us, the Plaintiffs. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative
110
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 9, Lines 5-8 14. The Reed Defendants have not addressed the disclosure of my birth records, which contained information on my adoption. Vital records are a search level feature of Accurint.
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarants statement in this portion of the declaration is not based on any personal or other knowledge, and is so inaccurate and speculative that it is in fact inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Page 9, Lines 9-19 15. In the Reed Defendants own MSJ, they acknowledge searches that were run by Plaintiff Liberi on herself. Plaintiff Liberi had a Lexis product through her school when she was taking her Continuing Legal Education for Paralegal Certification classes. Her Lexis product had features that allowed: People name and locator searches, people name variants which includes mother's maiden names, social security number searches, criminal history searches, marriage
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and the document, attached as Exhibit 1, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Additionally, the declarant
111
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Ostella Declaration records, professional licenses, address histories and phone number look ups and more, see EXHIBIT 1 at page 10, interrogatory No. 2, line 9.
Grounds for Objection fails to demonstrate that she has any factual basis for her testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the referenced documents are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 9, Line 20 Page 10, Line 2 16. However, they do not acknowledge that Plaintiff Liberi searched me and my husband which she did with our permission. We filed true and correct copies of a few of the searches in this case, see DN 66, at pages 32-37 and DN 391-4 at pages 16, 29, 31-32. Reed stated during the conference that those features were not suppose to be visible through their educational access views. After our complaints to the Reed Defendants, the Reed Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff Lisa Liberi and cancelled her account.
Page 10, Lines 4-13 17. Confi-Chek is a reseller of the Reed Defendants. I purchased background reports from their reseller on myself, my minor children, and on Plaintiff Lisa Liberi. Barbara from the Criminal History Inquiry
112
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Ostella Declaration Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety confirmed to us that Confi-Chek is a reseller of the Reed Defendants. I had to submit my fingerprints to that Criminal Division due to the fact these background reports that the Reed Defendant's resellers are selling show me as having a violent criminal offense committed in that Texas jurisdiction in 2010. I was not in Texas in 2010. I have never been to Texas. Page 10, Lines 15-23 18. Not only is Confi-Chek a reseller of the Reed Defendants; but Confi-Chek confirmed to us during a telephone conference that the Sankey Defendants have accounts with them. The Sankey Defendants also confirmed that they ran searches on us through Confi-Chek in their Judicial Admissions submitted to the Court in this case; see DNs 481, 481-2 at p. 54, paragraph 8, 4813, at pp. 72-73, paragraph 3, and 481-4, at pp. 102-103, paragraph 3, which are true and correct copies of the Sankey Defendants Judicial Admissions.
Grounds for Objection in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that she has any factual basis for her testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that she has any factual basis for her testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. . Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Speculative and argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 10, Lines 24-27 19. The Reed Defendants need to disclose all their resellers that have search queries and sold our information. Not disclosing this information is prejudicial to us, the Plaintiffs.
113
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). These statements are nothing more than a reiteration of assertions made by Plaintiffs in their opposition papers. They are thus improper and irrelevant as a factual matter. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the referenced documents are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that she has any factual basis for her testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 11, Lines 1-7 20. My inquiry history with my national credit report companies, Experian, Equifax and TransUnion, show Choicepoint and LexisNexis, the Reed Defendants, accessing my credit history on various occasions 2008 through 2009. I am willing to submit my full credit reports with the query history to Your Honor under seal.
114
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to Ostella Declaration Page 11, Lines 8-16 21. As per the GLB Act, attached hereto as EXHIBIT 12 only Real Estate, Insurance Providers, Financial Institutions, and Consumer Reporting Agencies have the right to access consumer reports, credit history information, and personal information. That makes the information FCRA. I have never given any of the Reed Defendants permission to access my credit history. I was never notified by any of my financial institutions that the Reed Defendants were seeking my data or in fact did access it.
Grounds for Objection Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarant lacks any personal knowledge to testify regarding the requirements and application of federal law. Fed. R. Evid. 602. This attempt to argue about what the law requires is impermissible legal argument and an inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 701. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Declarants alleged communication and correspondence with the Reed Defendants after the events alleged in the First Amended Complaint are not relevant to the issue whether an Accurint report is a consumer report within the meaning of the FCRA. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarants
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 11, Lines 18-26 22. The Reed Defendants were put on notice by us that our information was obtained by the Sankey Defendants. The Reed Defendants themselves banned the Sankeys account due to abuse reported by their reseller, IRBSearch, LLC in early 2010. The Sankeys had a user account with the Reed Defendants regardless as to whether it was obtained direct or indirectly. Yet the Reed Defendants have put us between Scylla and Charybdis rather than fully disclosing what information they have on my family and I and what and to whom it was disclosed to.
115
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Grounds for Objection statement in this portion of the declaration is not based on any personal or other knowledge, and is so inaccurate and speculative that it is in fact inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 23. Rather than working with 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 us so we can protect ourselves (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements and family, the Reed Defendants in declarations based on have been obfuscating and speculation or improper legal causing us more harm and conclusions, or argumentative money. statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Page 12, Lines 1-2
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF DR. FRANK OSTELLA Objections to F. Ostella Declaration Page 2, Lines 1-5 Grounds for Objection GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Frank Ostella is not a party to 1. I am a Doctor of this action. Therefore, the Osteopathic Medicine, practicing LexisNexis Defendants object in the field of Psychiatry. My to each and every paragraph of curriculum vitae and wet his declaration to the extent that signature are on file with the it is not based on personal Law Offices of Philip J. Berg knowledge, lacks foundation, and can be provided to this and is based on inadmissible Court, under seal, upon request hearsay. Additionally, the of Your Honor. LexisNexis Defendants object to the electronic signature appearing on Frank Ostellas Declaration as it violates the local rules on electronic filing.
116
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to F. Ostella Declaration Page 2, Lines 6-8 2. My wife, Lisa Ostella [Ostella], began doing website work with Defendant Orly Taitz [Taitz], in or about the Fall 2008. Page 2, Lines 9-11 3. Ostella stopped working with Taitz in April 2009 when Taitz was requesting unethical actions of my wife.
Grounds for Objection Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Page 2, Lines 12-16
4. Since that time, Taitz has retaliated against Ostella as well Inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. as our family. We have been accused of crimes, had all our information publicized in various formats, our neighbors and families have been contacted, and have been harassed and threatened. Page 2, Lines 18-23 5. Through interviews, Taitz website postings, and Court filings Ostella and Plaintiff Lisa Liberi [Liberi], learned that Taitz was obtaining our information through Private Investigators. These Private Investigators had accounts with entities of Reed Elsevier, Inc. [the Reed Defendants], and their Resellers, including but not limited to IRBsearch, LLC and Confi-Chek. Page 2, Line 25 Page 3, Line 7 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802.
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Frank Ostella is not a party to 6. The Reed Defendants were this action. His alleged put on notice by us that our data, correspondence with the Reed obtained from their companies, Defendants after the events
117
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to F. Ostella Declaration was obtained without any type of legal or permissible purpose and was being distributed all over the Internet, snail mail, radio shows, hand delivered, filed in unrelated court cases and numerous false law enforcement reports on February 28, 2010. Since that time, more letters, data requests, and phone conferences have been held with the Reed Defendants. All of these letters and conferences were for the full disclosure of who performed searches and purchased reports on us.
Grounds for Objection alleged in the First Amended Complaint is irrelevant to the issue whether an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the referenced documents are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 3, Lines 8-12 7. On October 27, 2010, in compliance with the Reed Defendants instructions and policies to receive my full disclosure consumer report, I submitted their full disclosure report form along with my drivers license and bank records. I also submitted executed opt-out forms on October 27, 2010.
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Frank Ostella is not a party to this action. His alleged correspondence with the Reed Defendants after the events alleged in the First Amended Complaint is irrelevant to the issue whether an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA.
The declarants statements concerning the contents of the referenced documents are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
Page 3, Lines 13-19 8. My wife had requested copies all our reports sold to the Sankey Defendants, and any other third party, through her
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The parties correspondence with the Reed Defendants after the events alleged in the First Amended Complaint is irrelevant to the issue whether
118
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to F. Ostella Declaration attorney, Philip J. Berg, Esquire by letter of February 28, 2010, which I have reviewed. Instead of receiving the requested information, she only received partial reports with very limited information.
Grounds for Objection an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the referenced documents are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 3, Lines 20-26
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Frank Ostella is not a party to 9. I did not receive copies of this action. His alleged any of my reports from the Reed correspondence with the Reed Defendants. The Reed Defendants after the events Defendants received my request alleged in the First Amended and supporting documentation as Complaint is irrelevant to the confirmed in the letter we issue whether an Accurint received from Jelani Headley of report is a consumer report LexisNexis Risk Solutions within the FCRA. Consumer Center, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the document, attached as Exhibit A, are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Page 4, Lines 1-4 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Frank Ostella is not a party to
119
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to F. Ostella Declaration 10. As requested in Mr. Headleys letter, I sent a copy of my drivers license to him under separate cover to POB 105108 Atlanta, GA 303048-5108. I never received any of my reports.
Grounds for Objection this action. His alleged correspondence with the Reed Defendants after the events alleged in the First Amended Complaint is irrelevant to the issue whether an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the referenced documents are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 4, Lines 5-14 11. In the Accurint (Reed Defendants) responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories, attached to the Declaration of Lisa Ostella as Exhibit 1, are Accurints admissions, which I have reviewed, that searches were conducted on me and my wife by Neil Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc. and reports on us were sold to Neil Sankey and The Sankey Firm, Inc. collectively [the Sankey Defendants], as well as a private investigating and surveillance firm, IRBSearch, LLC, on April 13, 2009, and April 19, 2009. Page 4, Lines 15-22
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Also, the declarants statements concerning the contents of parties correspondence are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the referenced documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Whether or not the Sankey 12. The partial information Defendants identified certain uses for the purpose of the received from Accurint (The Reed Defendants) in response to Gramm-Leach Bliley Act in the Plaintiffs Discovery requests, their agreement with IRB is not relevant to whether an Accurint show the Sankey Defendant's purpose under the Gramm Leach report is a consumer report Bliley Act [GLBA] was For within the FCRA. The use by persons holding a legal or declarants statements
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to F. Ostella Declaration beneficial interest relating to the consumer and For use by persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer.
Grounds for Objection concerning the contents of the referenced document violate the best evidence rule and constitute inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 1002, 802. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the referenced document are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the document and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Page 4, Lines 23-26 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Whether or not the Sankey Defendants identified certain 13. None of the Sankey Defendants ever represented me uses for the purpose of the or my wife in a legal or fiduciary Gramm-Leach Bliley Act in manner, and they have never had their agreement with IRB is not any type of a legal or beneficial relevant to whether an Accurint interest in me or my wife. report is a consumer report within the FCRA. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered
121
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to F. Ostella Declaration
Grounds for Objection on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 5, Lines 1-12 14. None of the Sankey Defendants in this suit had mine or my wifes permission to obtain any type of reports, conduct searches or act on our behalf in any fashion. I have never met nor spoken with Neil Sankey. I never heard of any of the Sankey Defendants prior to the time my wife filed suit in May 2009. This stated purpose of Fiduciary/Beneficiary, which is a permissible purpose under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, was selected at the Reed Defendant's login as admitted by the Reed Defendant's in their Summary Judgment Motion, that I have reviewed and have personal knowledge of, see the Reed Defendants MSJ Memorandum, page 5, lines 22-25. Page 5, Lines 13-22
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Whether or not the Sankey Defendants identified certain uses for the purpose of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act in their agreement with IRB is not relevant to whether an Accurint report is a consumer report within the FCRA. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. The declarants statements 15. The Reed Defendant's concerning the contents of the MSJ Memorandum on page 11, LexisNexis Defendants lines 5-12, admits Neil Sankey Motion for Summary Judgment was given account access and the referenced website are through The Sankey Firm, Inc. A objectionable to the extent that simple search through the those statements are California Department of inconsistent with the referenced Consumer Affairs, Bureau of materials and violate the best Security and Investigative evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. Services, license verification 1002. located on the Internet at http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/ wllpub/wllqryna$lcev2.startup?p qte code=PI&p qte code=2420 reflects that Neil Sankey was never licensed as a Private Investigator through the Sankey Firm, Inc. Page 5, Lines 23-26 Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Frank Ostella is not a party to
122
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to F. Ostella Declaration 16. The Reed Defendants have refused to supply me with the reports they sold to the Sankey Defendants, IRBsearch, LLC and other third parties. These are documents I am clearly entitled to.
Grounds for Objection this action. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Frank Ostella is not a party to this action. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the referenced documents are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the documents and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 6, Lines 1-8 17. As stated, the Reed Defendants have admitted in their Court filings that the Sankey Defendants and IRBsearch, LLC obtained reports on me. I am also aware, as I provided permission, that Plaintiff Liberi searched me in the LexisNexis database, for which she had an account. All of course, I am entitled to receive copies of from the Reed Defendants, again which they have refused to provide.
Page 6, Lines 9-14 18. My wife purchased background reports from ConfiChek, Reseller of the Reed Defendants products, on herself,
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Frank Ostella is not a party to this action. Lacks foundation. Fed. R.
123
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to F. Ostella Declaration and our minor children. This is very concerning to me for a number of reasons. Not only does it violate our laws protecting our children, it has, in this instance, endangered my children.
Grounds for Objection Evid. 602. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Frank Ostella is not a party to this action. Lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarants statement in this portion of the declaration is not based on any personal or other knowledge, and is so inaccurate and speculative that it is in fact inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403. Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Frank Ostella is not a party to this action. Additionally, the declarant fails to demonstrate that he has any factual basis for his testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarant's opinion concerning these matters is irrelevant and constitutes
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 6, Lines 15-23 19. In reviewing the partial reports my wife received from the Reed Defendants, I noticed our phone numbers were provided. Because of my profession, our home number has always been unlisted and unpublished. The only way the Reed Defendants could have obtained our unlisted and unpublished home phone numbers, is from our telephone carrier. Neither my wife nor I have ever authorized release of our telephone records or unlisted/unpublished phone numbers.
Page 6, Line 25 Page 7, Line 5 20. Also concerning is the facts the Reed Defendants have information on me and my wife that was provided by my financial institutions. We have not received any notification or opt-out notices from any of our
124
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to F. Ostella Declaration financial institutions
Grounds for Objection improper opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.).
GRANTED/ DENIED
Page 6, Lines 6-16 21. I also read in the Reed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment that they obtain credit header information and reports from the National Credit Reporting Bureaus. Both I and my wife are opted out of promotional purposes and disclosure of our information with each of the three bureaus, Equifax, TransUnion and Experian. It is my understanding that the only way the Reed Defendants would have access to my credit information from the National Credit Bureaus is if I had applied for credit, which I had not done; or they were a consumer credit reporting agency.
Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Frank Ostella is not a party to this action. The declarants statements concerning the contents of the LexisNexis Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment are objectionable to the extent that those statements are inconsistent with the brief and violate the best evidence rule. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements in declarations based on speculation or improper legal conclusions, or argumentative statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered on a motion for summary judgment.). The declarants statement in this portion of the declaration is not based on any personal or other knowledge, and is so inaccurate and speculative that it is in fact inadmissible under Fed. R.
125
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Objections to F. Ostella Declaration
Grounds for Objection Evid. 403.
GRANTED/ DENIED
Argumentative. Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 22. The Reed Defendants 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 need to disclose all their resellers (E.D. Cal. 2006) ([s]tatements and third parties that have in declarations based on conducted search queries on me speculation or improper legal and my wife and have obtained conclusions, or argumentative and/or sold our information, statements, are not facts and likewise will not be considered including who the end user of this information was. The Reed on a motion for summary Defendants failure to disclose judgment.). The declarants this information to me and my statement in this portion of the wife is prejudicial, dangerous declaration is not based on any and hampers my ability to ensure personal or other knowledge, the safety of me, my wife and and is so inaccurate and our children. speculative that it is in fact inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403. Page 6, Lines 17-25 Dated: May 7, 2012 JAMES F. McCABE MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s James F. McCabe James F. McCabe Attorneys for Reed Elsevier Inc., LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group Inc., LexisNexis, Inc., LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc., LexisNexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint, and LexisNexis Group Inc.
126

Reed Objections To Plaintiffs Evidence Doc 507

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reed Objections To Plaintiffs Evidence Doc 507

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 517 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 127 Page ID #:13493

Grounds for Objection

Grounds for Objection

Page 2, Line 23 Page 3, Line 2

Objections to Berg Declaration

Grounds for Objection 1002.

Page 3, Lines 4-11

Objections to Berg Declaration Page 3, Lines 16-26

Grounds for Objection

Grounds for Objection

Objections to Berg Declaration

Grounds for Objection 1002.

Objections to Berg Declaration

Page 5, Lines 8-15

Objections to Berg Declaration

Page 5, Lines 23-26

Objections to Berg Declaration

Page 6, Lines 7-12

Page 7, Line 19 Page 8, Line 2

Objections to Berg Declaration

Page 8, Lines 4-11

Page 8, Line 26 Page 9, Line 8

Grounds for Objection invoke Rule 56(d) in their opposition papers.

Page 9, Lines 16-21

Objections to Berg Declaration

Grounds for Objection

Objections to Berg Declaration

Grounds for Objection

Grounds for Objection

Objections to Berg Declaration

Objections to Berg Declaration

Objections to Berg Declaration

Grounds for Objection

Grounds for Objection

Grounds for Objection

Objections to Berg Declaration

Grounds for Objection

Grounds for Objection

Objections to Berg Declaration and documents they failed to provide me in discovery.

Grounds for Objection judgment.).

Grounds for Objection

Grounds for Objection

Objections to Berg Declaration California, Case No. 3:11-cv-00908-L WMC

Grounds for Objection

Grounds for Objection

Objections to Berg Declaration

Grounds for Objection 701.

Grounds for Objection

Objections to Berg Declaration

Grounds for Objection 701.

Objections to Berg Declaration Page 36, Lines 7-18

Grounds for Objection

Grounds for Objection

Grounds for Objection

Grounds for Objection

Grounds for Objection

Irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.

Objections to Liberi Declaration

Page 3, Lines 15-24

Objections to Liberi Declaration

Page 3, Line 26 Page 4, Line 16

Objections to Liberi Declaration Defendants in unredacted form. Page 4, Lines 18-26

Grounds for Objection